PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By  Order)

Order read for further consideration, as amended by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
	To be further considered on Thursday 7 February.

Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Common Fisheries Policy

Andrew George: What progress she has made in securing reform of the common fisheries policy.

Elliot Morley: The Government are committed to securing fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy with the aim of achieving an economically and environmentally sustainable CFP. The Government submitted a formal response last September to the European Commission's Green Paper on the forthcoming review of the CFP. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. We have to be optimistic because, after all, even the Commission would be hard pressed to produce a policy more disastrous than the present one. The Minister and I share a commitment to achieving effective devolution in any future plan. In that spirit, will the Minister agree to replace the funds that his Department has taken from Cornwall's objective 1 programme to fund its decommissioning scheme? If he permits objective 1 funds to be used for decommissioning, will he allow Cornwall to run its own decommissioning scheme to ensure real economic benefits to Cornwall rather than to Spanish quota hoppers?

Elliot Morley: That was an ingenious way of working in a local issue on the back of a national question. On the wider issue, the Commission's Green Paper on CFP reform points in the right direction. It acknowledges the issues that our fishing industry wants to be included in that reform, and we will be pressing for that.
	On decommissioning and objective 1 funds in Cornwall, the £6 million fund available for decommissioning covers the cost of that decommissioning through objective 1 funding in Cornwall. About £1 million has been paid through objective 1 to cover decommissioning bids. Although it is true that one of those vessels is Spanish-owned, it is Cornish-registered, and has a record of landing in Cornwall. Therefore, whether we like it or not, the vessel is eligible under the rules.
	I am glad to say that the measures that we introduced on the economic link conditions have led to a fundamental change in the number of quota hoppers. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we inherited the situation, we did not create it.

Shona McIsaac: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the controversial debate on commercial fish stocks on the pages of the Grimsby Telegraph. That debates centres around seals and their effect on fishing stocks. What evidence does he have to show that seals are having a detrimental impact on commercial fish stocks? Does he have any opinion on the support expressed in some parts of Grimsby for culling seals to increase fish stocks?

Elliot Morley: I am reluctant to get involved in a dispute between my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), not least because the headline in the Grimsby Telegraph was "Clubber versus Cuddler".
	The research carried out so far illustrates that the connection between seals and the food chain is complex. There is no clear evidence that seals seriously affect commercial fish stocks. We are, however, continuing to undertake further research to obtain a clear understanding of the role of seals within the marine ecosystem.

Angus Robertson: In line with the first question on devolving a reformed common fisheries policy, can the Minister tell the House what weight the Government are giving to moves to establish zonal management as part of the reform of the CFP and what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on this subject?

Elliot Morley: We keep in close touch with the Scottish Executive. Our position on the CFP is agreed between ourselves and the devolved Administrations, which have been involved at every stage of formulating policy.
	I support the concept of regional management and, indeed, zonal management. However, the concept of zonal management and enlargement is much more advanced within our country, as is discussion of how we can have regional, devolved fisheries management. Those arguments are new to many European countries, but we are engaging them to demonstrate that devolving the CFP is the best way forward in order to make it more flexible and responsive. We must recognise the enormous differences in fishing patterns in our own country, let alone the rest of Europe.

Bob Blizzard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success at the December Fisheries Council meeting in securing the quotas that our fishermen asked for, thus proving the value of good dialogue with the fishing industry. Does he agree that in the context of CFP reform and annual quota negotiations, we need a long-term view of where the UK fishing industry is going. Will he establish a Government industry taskforce, like the oil and gas industry taskforce, to work out where we want to be and how we can get there?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend puts forward an interesting idea and I know that he is in close contact with his local fishing industry. We have set up a high-level group to engage the fishing industry, from catching to processing, and it has valued the chance to have such a forum. There will be opportunities to develop that and I will give it some thought. The last Fisheries Council had a good outcome for the United Kingdom fishing industry because we stuck to the science and the industry accepted the scientific case. We obtained changes where the Commission went beyond science without justification and where the case for our bids was backed up by firm scientific evidence based on sustainability.

Ann Winterton: Does the proposed cod and hake recovery programme, which will presumably be applicable before the end of the year, override the current western waters effort limitation scheme as set out in its entirety in European Union regulation 650/95? Will the programme be directly applicable to all member states?

Elliot Morley: The cod and hake recovery programmes will apply to all member states. The western waters effort management regime is in place, but the cod and hake programmes will take precedence. Indeed, the point of those programmes is conservation management. Western hake is in serious difficulty and we must take firm action. I am pleased that our industry's argument for the use of increased mesh sizes in the bay of Biscay has been accepted.

Lindane

Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will ban the use of the pesticide lindane.

Margaret Beckett: The use of all lindane-based products is being phased out. No products may be sold or supplied in the United Kingdom and all products intended for agricultural use must be used up and disposed of by 20 June 2002.
	The approvals for the use of lindane wood preservatives have already been revoked and stock must be disposed of by November 2002. Some insecticides remain approved for storage and use until January 2003, but must then be disposed of by January 2004.

Anne Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. She will be aware of the link that has been made between the use of lindane and the worrying increase in the incidence of breast cancer. Can she assure me that, as well as being phased out for commercial, agricultural and horticultural use, lindane will be phased out for domestic use throughout Europe?

Margaret Beckett: Obviously, what happens throughout Europe is a matter for other authorities, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep closely under review issues relating to lindane. I am aware that concern has been expressed about a link between its use and breast cancer, but my hon. Friend will also know that reservations have been expressed about the strength of that link and whether there is a risk. It remains the case, however, that lindane is on the way to being phased out for the uses listed by my hon. Friend.

John Horam: As the Secretary of State will be aware, the steering group that oversees the voluntary package of measures designed to reduce the use of pesticides in farming in general is due to produce a report on its progress this week. Has she received such a report and, if so, will she publish it?

Margaret Beckett: I have not yet received it. When it is received, the consideration for which the hon. Gentleman asks will be given. As he knows, as and when we can, we put as much information as possible in the public domain.

Agricultural Shows

Huw Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, if she will make a statement on the resumption of local agricultural shows.

Alun Michael: Agricultural shows are very important to rural communities and we hope that they will be able to go ahead later this year, but those shows will need to be licensed and meet strict biosecurity standards. We will announce the details as soon as possible.

Huw Edwards: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the resumption of agricultural shows will be a great boost to the morale of the agricultural community and that such shows play an important role in the calendar of rural areas? Also, they bring together rural areas and towns. Will he join me in commending all those who work so hard to organise the annual Monmouth, Chepstow and Usk agricultural shows?

Alun Michael: If I may stray back over the border for a minute, I am happy to pay tribute to all the work that goes on. As a Government, we want to put as much confidence as possible back into rural communities. That is why, earlier this week, we launched the campaign "Your countryside, you're welcome"—not as a Government campaign but as Government support for 50 organisations, ranging from farming to tourism and voluntary groups such as the Women's Institute. Like the people who put effort into organising the shows, such partnerships make the countryside work and it is important that they are given every confidence for the future.

Hugo Swire: In December, I asked the Minister a question on behalf of the Devon county show about the movement of livestock. He was good enough to say that he would try to give us a reply by the end of January. Today is the last day of January: has the right hon. Gentleman any news that I can pass on to the organisers of the Devon county show? Will they be able to show livestock this year?

Alun Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we must be extremely sensitive and that we must not take risks, even at this point when it appears that foot and mouth disease has been eradicated. That is why great care is being taken in drawing up regulations on animal movements and associated activities. We need to be very careful. However, we hope, within a few days, to be able to respond in respect of the agricultural show about which he asked. On a previous occasion, I said that as I had visited the Devon show last year, when no animals were shown, I appreciated the show's importance in the hon. Gentleman's county. We hope very much that it will be able to go ahead without constraints this year. We shall get back to the hon. Gentleman very soon.

Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that agricultural shows are about much more than rural affairs and agriculture? They are a celebration of allotment holders, gardeners and a multitude of skills. Certainly, the Keighley agricultural show is a rare celebration of town and country combining in the various ways that I mentioned. It is a wonderful occasion for the people of Keighley and the surrounding area.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes her point well. During the period of devastation by foot and mouth disease last year, many people in towns and cities came to appreciate what was put in danger as a result. It is thus extremely important that shows are supported by people in towns and cities as well as by those in the countryside. They help us to get over what is perceived in some places as a divide, but which should not be a divide.

Keith Simpson: The Minister's comment that he would be able to announce a decision within the next few days will be warmly welcomed by all those involved in agricultural shows. As the House is aware, the cancellation of many of those shows cost a large number of people a great deal of money. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) said, there are effects not only on the farming community but on the wider rural community. About 300 agricultural shows are held every year and they attract 8 million visitors. Which shows do the right hon. Gentleman and his ministerial team intend to visit this year to demonstrate that they have full confidence in them and that they are welcome in the countryside?

Alun Michael: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be equally enthusiastic. As I pointed out, I went to the Devon show last year. Wherever possible, we intend to visit shows, but their importance lies in what they do for town and country and for the individuals and communities that they represent. We must give people the certainty to go ahead. They need to know which qualifications they should meet as soon as possible. We shall do that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend visit the Royal Lancashire show—the oldest show in the country? If he does so, he might be able to ensure that there is an exhibition from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to put the case about what we are doing as a Government for rural society. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that at those events country and town come together to show the best of rural affairs.

Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for demonstrating that DEFRA Ministers are popular on both sides of the House and that our visits are anticipated with enthusiasm. I assure him that whether or not we attend particular shows, we strongly support their importance to their local communities, as he described.

Sue Doughty: Will the Minister bear in mind that some shows, such as the Surrey show, had to be cancelled last year? It is now a matter of urgency that the shows are able to put in place arrangements for their exhibitors, particularly those who bring animals along as part of their exhibit. There will be extra costs for cleaning and disinfection, and extra paperwork. Will the Minister be able to provide any assistance to the organisers of county shows, which provide such a wonderful showcase for our agricultural community?

Alun Michael: The problems to which the hon. Lady refers are well understood. We have to be realistic; we have just been through the most devastating and unprecedented outbreak of animal disease and, while we all want to look to the future, we must ensure that we take no risks in so doing. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that. As soon as possible, we want to give the shows certainty about what they need to do to be able to go ahead, and then to provide them with the enthusiasm and support that she and other hon. Members have suggested that they need. The shows need customers—the public—along with certainty as to what they need to do to attract them.

Recycling Directive (Fridges)

Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on the cost to (a) local councils and (b) individuals of implementing the EU Directive on the recycling of refrigerators and freezers.

Michael Meacher: I understand that the current charges levied by waste management companies for the storage and processing of fridges are in the range of £22 to £35 per unit, but that these are likely to fall once additional recycling facilities are operational. There should be no significant increase in costs to members of the public.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister confirm that in the UK we dispose of some 3 million fridges a year, and that the fridge mountain is reckoned to be growing at a rate of 6,500 a day? Does he also accept that the funding currently available to local authorities is woefully inadequate? Why should my local council have to raid other budgets to find the estimated £700,000 of new costs to deal with this problem in East Sussex?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is approximately right: about 2.5 million—perhaps up to 3 million—fridges enter the waste stream each year, either for scrapping and decommissioning or for refurbishment and selling on to the domestic market. On funding, in December we announced a £6 million package to cover the cost to the end of the current fiscal year. We made it perfectly clear then that we are urgently considering what further funding might be necessary for the storage and processing of fridges in the next fiscal year. We believe that that is perfectly adequate. I would also point out to the hon. Gentleman that, in the current three-year spending period—spending review 2000—we have provided for an increase of £1.1 billion for environmental protection and cultural services, which includes waste management.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister tell us when he expects the new capacity to be on stream to deal with the problem of removing the chlorofluorocarbons from the insulation material in fridges? The longer we have to wait for that, the more the costs will grow. Does he acknowledge that we are in this situation because the Government have been led by the nose by the EU directive rather than initiating their own programmes, and failed to recognise that the directive had a mandatory requirement, which they discovered only three weeks before it came into effect? Is not the same problem going to arise with the disposal of cars? Does the Minister not recognise that it is not the job of the EU to tell us what to do? [Interruption.] It is our job—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman finish.

Malcolm Bruce: Hon. Members should contain themselves. What the EU is telling us to do is highly desirable, but we should not be waiting for it to pass directives. We should be implementing our own policy and shaping EU policy, rather than being the late followers-on behind initiatives that have been taken by other countries. Does the Minister admit that we have left it too late in this instance, and that that is why it is costing us so much?

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman's first point is perfectly sensible, and he is right to say that storage costs will continue to mount up until we can get the recycling plant in place. We have made every possible effort to obtain that technology, which is not currently available in this country, since we realised in June 2001 that it would be necessary in order to extract CFCs from insulating foam. A number of companies are investing in new plant; I am aware of up to a dozen which have expressed a strong interest, and I expect some of them to introduce it shortly. I certainly expect a number to be operational in the spring.
	On the second point, the hon. Gentleman should not get so excited about being led by EU directives, which are introduced by member states as a result of agreement between them all. In this case, an EC regulation drafted in 1998 required the extraction of CFCs from the coolant gases in fridge motors, but not from insulation foam. However, just before the regulation came to the Environment Council in 1999, a change to article 15 caused uncertainty as to whether it applied to insulation foam.
	From that point, late in 1999, my officials made repeated requests to the Commission for formal clarification of that article, and I have a record of every such instance. We did not get a formal reply until June 2001. We were badly let down by the Commission, and that is not the way in which EU legislation should be passed. However, since we finally found out about insulation foam in June 2001, we have taken every step to resolve the matter as quickly as possible.

Jonathan Sayeed: After speaking to local authorities, I can tell the Minister that it is clear that, due to Government incompetence, the extra costs are £30 to collect an old fridge, £30 to store it and at least £10 a fridge for bulk delivery to a recycler—that is, when they start to operate. For 3 million fridges a year, that is an unnecessary and unbudgeted cost of more than £200 million.
	On 14 January, the Minister said:
	"We are . . . taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed"—
	on local authorities—
	"they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
	Will the Minister confirm that central Government will pay that £200 million? When will local authorities get the bulk of that money?

Michael Meacher: First, as I thought I had made perfectly clear—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening—the incompetence is nothing to do with the UK Government; it is entirely the responsibility of the Commission. Secondly, I do not accept the figures that he produced. The cost will not be £200 million a year, or anything like it. I have made clear, and I repeat, that the reasonable costs of local authorities will be met by the £6 million available until the end of March, and we will make a further announcement in due course on what we believe are the reasonable costs that need to be met beyond that.
	The most appropriate way to distribute the £6 million to the local authorities is through the rate support grant mechanism, so they will receive it in their standard spending assessments, as they have generally made clear that they want grant aid paid in that way. Local authorities should have their reasonable costs covered; we are trying to minimise those costs by securing investment in new technology and new plant as soon as possible, and we have protected householders from any interruption in the buying and selling of fridges.

Waste Recycling Targets

John Baron: What financial support her Department is giving to local councils in order to help them meet their waste recycling targets.

Michael Meacher: The Government are increasing funding for the environmental protection and cultural services block, which includes waste management, by £1.1 billion over the SR 2000 period. There is also a ring-fenced fund of £140 million for local authority recycling and £220 million for the private finance initiative waste projects over the same period. Councils will also benefit from the £40 million that the Government have given to the waste resources action programme to overcome market barriers to re-use and the recycling of waste.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that response. Given that Britain has just nine years to triple the amount of waste that it recycles, or face stiff EU penalties, and that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Waste Watch have criticised the Government for the amount of assistance that they are giving to councils compared to what those organisations believe is required—something like £375 million a year—can the Minister now respond to Greenpeace's accusation that Labour is the party of incineration?

Michael Meacher: As I have already said, now and on many previous occasions, the amount of extra funding that has been provided to reach the statutory recycling targets for local authorities is generous by any standard. Let me make it clear that this is not just a question of resources. Although the recycling record of some local authorities is abysmal—at 3 or 5 per cent.—many local authorities are in the 15 to 20 per cent. bracket, and some are meeting targets of more than 25 per cent. and even up to 30 per cent.
	It is a matter of local political will and of providing the appropriate local facilities—notably, kerbside collection. I do not accept that the suggested funding is necessary.
	I find the hon. Gentleman's last point extraordinary. Under the previous Government, there were about 20 or 30 incinerators in this country; there are now 11. There are no plans for any further increase in incineration, provided that we can meet the EU landfill directive targets and achieve the statutory recycling targets. The Conservative party presided over a much larger number of incinerators than we are conceivably planning.

Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of extra money for recycling will be warmly welcomed in the north-east, especially as local authorities in the county of Durham have had a very poor settlement this year, despite Government protestations to the contrary? But I warmly welcome his statement that this is not just a matter of money. Is he also aware that, in the Bishop Auckland area, all kinds of voluntary groups and, indeed, the business community are bubbling up with imaginative ideas for recycling, but the local authorities seem to be unable to respond supportively?

Michael Meacher: My right hon. Friend is right because, let me I repeat, this is not simply a question of resources—those resources must be adequate. We are sure that we are providing adequate resources. Three things are required: first, the targets to drive the programme; secondly, the money to finance it; and, thirdly, the all-important markets, to which he referred. There is no point in recycling large amounts of paper, glass, tin, aluminium or whatever unless it can be sold on. The purpose of setting up WRAP—the waste resources action programme, which is business-led and chaired by Vic Cocker, who is a water industry chief executive—is to provide local authorities with good business sense, at arm's length from Government, on the markets for recycling. We think that that is very important. There are many innovative ideas, and there is no excuse for local authorities not to adopt them.

Derek Conway: Is the Minister aware that Bexley council has a good recycling record? However, as well as encouraging such councils, is he aware that in places such as Welling the recycling site is located close to residential properties, so the local authority spends considerable amounts trying to protect residents from the inevitable noise generated in pursuit of what is unquestionably a very good cause? Recyling also has human consequences and local authorities need support from the Minister to deal with them.

Michael Meacher: Of course I accept that any industrial process, including an integrated waste management facility, involves a certain amount of noise and lorry journeys, and I am well aware that it can cause dust and nuisance. Obviously, this is matter for local authorities. In the past such facilities have been re-sited as a result of planning applications, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's local planning authority has taken account of the wider environmental impacts.
	I repeat that integrated waste management facilities may be required in the future, and I believe that the necessary finance is available. However, it is a matter for local authorities to locate such facilities sensibly.

Mark Lazarowicz: I congratulate the Government on their record on recycling and praise my right hon. Friend for his personal commitment to this issue. Will he consider assisting local authorities to deal with a particular item of domestic waste: used domestic batteries? He will know that, except for an excellent scheme in Lancashire, there are hardly any schemes that allow for their recycling. Will he consider ways of encouraging local authorities to recycle domestic batteries and to work with industry to achieve that?

Michael Meacher: That is a useful point. [Laughter.] I do not think that it was amusing.
	If batteries are thrown away and collected by local authorities to end up in landfill, that is not the most environmentally sensible way of handling them. There needs to be kerbside collection and separation at source. There is an EU proposal for a producer responsibility directive for batteries. Obviously, in the light of experience of other matters, we shall need to examine the proposal's drafting and we shall consider it carefully. However, the concept is sensible.
	It is already possible for local authorities to put in place arrangements for kerbside collection. We believe that statutory recycling targets will require virtually all local authorities to do that. However, there is nothing to stop them doing that now. I therefore urge local authorities to put in place arrangements for the kerbside collection of products, such as batteries, that should not go into landfill. Landfill is not the most environmentally sustainable way of handling them, and kerbside collection will enable them to be collected and reused in a better way.

Peter Ainsworth: I was intrigued by the Minister's scathing remarks about local authorities that achieve recycling rates of only 3 to 5 per cent., which he described as abysmal. Does that apply to the authority in Oldham in his constituency, which achieves 4.5 per cent. recycling? Will he compare and contrast that with the position in Tandridge council in my constituency, which achieves 21 per cent. recycling? Will he congratulate Tandridge on that?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of the £140 million to which he alluded—it has been ring-fenced to help local authorities—has yet been spent? It is no good boasting about the money, because none of it has been spent. Will not robbing environmental trusts of funds in a desperate bid to bolster the Government's failing recycling strategy deprive many environmental projects of much-needed funding while still failing to save the Government's face over the shambles that they have made of recycling? Their own performance is abysmal.

Michael Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is getting better, but he still has some way to go.
	I congratulate those local authorities, such as his, that have a good recycling record. I am delighted about that. I do not know what Oldham's exact position is, but it is certainly in one of the lowest groups. I am targeting precisely such authorities through the £140 million recycling fund in an attempt to help them raise their performance. I point out, however, that Oldham is a Lib-Dem controlled council.
	The £140 million recycling fund is, indeed, ring-fenced and it can be used only for waste-management purposes. We have just completed a consultation about how it will be distributed and we shall make a statement, I hope, very soon, on our conclusions. However, I cannot, of course, at this moment say how much will go to any individual local authority.
	It was a bit rich of the hon. Gentleman to talk about robbing environmental trusts because he is actually referring to the fact that we are reconsidering the landfill tax credit scheme. We want to use that scheme, which we of course inherited from the previous Government, to support sustainable waste management objectives. It has by no means been focused on that. That is why we are reviewing it. We have published indicative guidelines saying that 65 per cent. of the spend should be towards such schemes, including one third of it specifically on recycling. In the next few weeks, we shall issue a consultation paper on the full range of options, from the status quo to full replacement via a public expenditure programme.
	I have said repeatedly to the Wildlife Trust and the other environmental bodies that I am keen that the amount of money that they receive—valuably—for the important projects over which they preside should not be reduced in any redistribution that might be achieved. That remains my position.

Chris Bryant: The Minister has referred several times to the importance of recycling in cutting incineration, but is recycling not also an important way to cut the number of landfill sites? Is he troubled by the fact that Rhondda, Cynon, Taff council, which, to inform my right hon. Friend, is run by the Welsh nationalists, has only now begun a pilot recycling scheme? Will he undertake on the next occasion that he speaks to his counterpart in the Welsh Assembly to raise his concerns on that matter?

Michael Meacher: I am certainly happy to do that, although we have made very clear over a long period the need for a fundamental transformation in the way in which this country handles waste. We are driven by the EU landfill directive. At the moment, we landfill probably more than any other member state—around 85 per cent. of household waste. We must reduce that to no more than 35 per cent. of the 1995 level, which is of course much lower than today's.
	On our reckoning, if we continued current practices all the way to 2016, by which time the change must occur, which of course we certainly shall not, we would in that year have to shift about 33 million tonnes away from landfill. That is why there must be action now on a significant scale.
	The first requirement is waste minimisation—not creating the waste in the first place. Secondly, if the waste is generated, it should be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I very gently say to the Minister that I have to get through the Order Paper, and the answers are too long.

Livestock Markets

Ian Liddell-Grainger: What the (a) timetable and (b) mechanics are of opening livestock markets.

Elliot Morley: The Government plan to allow the reopening of some livestock markets from 11 February, subject to biosecurity conditions. Further details will be announced shortly and placed in the Library of the House, published on DEFRA's website and made more generally available.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Does the Minister realise just what problems there are in trying to get cattle and sheep off places such as Exmoor? One market now serves that area. The market at Bridgwater has gone completely and there is trouble opening Taunton. Will he ensure that the decision to reopen is made—I am glad to hear the date of 11 February and hope that there will be a full opening on that day—and that DEFRA does not impose licences or put other obstructions in the way of that? If it does so, social deprivation on Exmoor will continue, and it is getting desperate.

Elliot Morley: We are not interested in putting obstructions in the way of the livestock sector but in bringing it back to normality without taking a risk, for example, with latent disease in some of the sheep flocks. We made our proposals available to the livestock industry on 18 January. We have had extensive consultation with the sector because we are trying to strike a balance between ensuring proper biosecurity and minimising risk, and recognising the needs of the sector. We have had tremendous co-operation from the livestock sector on that point, and that is why 11 February is the very latest stage of the process. As soon as we can bring the proposals forward, we will do so.

Charlotte Atkins: Despite the excellent impact of the market towns initiative on Leek, is my hon. Friend aware how anxious communities and farmers are to reopen the livestock market in Leek when the necessary biosecurity measures have been implemented? That would have a huge impact on the morale of farmers and everyone involved in the rural economy. I urge him to ensure that such markets can open as soon as possible.

Elliot Morley: I understand the case that my hon. Friend makes and how important livestock markets are to the local and regional economy. For that reason, we are in the final stages of our proposals and I am sure that a workable scheme will be in place to achieve the balance that I have outlined.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that livestock markets are the only method by which livestock farmers can get a fair and transparent price for their animals? It is a matter of the greatest urgency that livestock markets, such as Chelford, which lies within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and also serves my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), can operate fully at the earliest opportunity. Will he ensure that costs associated with licensing and all other safety measures are kept to an absolute minimum so that those markets, which are at the centre of rural agricultural activity, can open again to serve the livestock producers of this country?

Elliot Morley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that administration costs will be kept as low as possible. I emphasise again the risks of spreading disease. We need to think carefully about that, and it is not an issue of contention between us and the livestock industry. I accept what he says about the importance of livestock markets and their social function in communities, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). However, a range of innovative ways to market livestock have been developed and we should not rule them out. We want to encourage all sorts of innovation and enterprise, wherever that may be, while recognising the role of livestock markets.

Poland

Wayne David: If she will make a statement on the issues discussed with the Polish Government on her recent visit to Poland.

Margaret Beckett: I visited Poland on 13 and 14 January and had one-to-one meetings with the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Minister. I encouraged Poland to play an active and constructive part in preparing itself for European Union membership, congratulated the Government on reaching a conclusion on the environment chapter and stressed the importance of maintaining the implementation and enforcement programme.

Wayne David: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I am sure that she will agree that EU enlargement, including Polish membership, cannot wait until we reform the common agricultural policy. Does she also agree that the development strategy is extremely important post- enlargement and that there is already a great deal of common ground between the Polish Government and the British Government?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. The UK Government have always taken the view and approach that CAP reform should be pursued, and we strongly support enlargement. We wish to pursue those separate developments in parallel, but I agree that one is not conditional on the other. I also agree that it is important to do what we can to support rural development. He is right to identify from our discussions that the Polish Government see eye to eye with us on a number of issues.

Edward Garnier: During the Secretary of State's discussions with her Polish counterpart, did she have an opportunity to discuss the role of good administration in a representative democracy? I wrote to her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), the right hon. Lady herself and each of her Front-Bench companions. Since March, I have sent no fewer than nine letters on matters concerning their Department. I tabled a written parliamentary question in November which was not answered, nor were any of my other letters—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with Poland. Can the Minister answer the question?

Margaret Beckett: In so far as I followed it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has written to my Department and not received a reply, I offer him the most profound apology. He will know, because we have written to every hon. Member—I hope that that letter at least has arrived—that there have been enormous problems with handling correspondence in my Department. Strenuous attempts have been made to overcome that. We are under the impression that a great deal has been done to tackle the backlog, but I shall look at once into his complaint.

Rural Strategy

David Drew: If she will make a statement on the recent discussions about rural strategy she has had with parish and town councils and their representative body.

Alun Michael: The Government are breaking new ground in engaging with the work of parish and town councils. I am very encouraged by the response to the quality local scheme on which we are consulting at present. The National Association of Local Councils is represented on the national rural affairs forum, and will therefore be able to put concerns directly to Ministers.

David Drew: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging news and declare an interest as a town councillor.
	There is much to be done. I know that liaison with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is very good, but this first and important level of government often relies on the work of parish clerks in terms of capacity. In the past week, I received a letter from one of my best parish clerks, Jane Roberts of Kings Stanley parish council. The council is under a great deal of pressure. It is pleased to have been brought into this aspect of government, but we need to ensure that both clerks and councillors can handle that pressure. How could that be done?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is right. I have met parish clerks who act as a powerhouse, enabling parish council members to do a great deal. That is why we have established support for training parish clerks, as we have for training town and parish councillors. We want to give these organisations the capacity not just to represent but to act as a driving force in their communities.

Michael Spicer: When will I receive an answer to the parliamentary question that I tabled on 15 January, which in turn asked when I would receive an answer to my letter of 3 December asking for a meeting between Upton-on-Severn town council and the Government to discuss matters connected with rural development?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman will receive an answer very quickly, having asked his question today.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, she recently wrote to every Member explaining that we had discovered a basic systems failure in the correspondence arrangements. Ministers and officials at the Department are putting considerable effort into dealing with the enormous backlog—not a surprising backlog, because of the tremendous problems resulting from foot and mouth disease, which had an impact on Members' postbags and hence on the number of letters to the Department. We will catch up as soon as possible, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the specific example that he gave will be dealt with quickly.

Kevin Hughes: My constituency contains three excellent councils, Askern, Stainforth, and Thorne and Moorends. Does my right hon. Friend agree that town councils are a fundamental part of our local democracy? Will he confirm that the Government's policy is to strengthen and enhance their role?

Alun Michael: We certainly want to strengthen and enhance their role. I was encouraged the other day in the Forest of Dean when my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) invited parish council members along to discuss the consultative document that I mentioned earlier. More than 100 parish and town council members turned up, and were enthusiastic, engaged, questioning and responsive. I think that the potential exists throughout the country for lifting the game of town and parish councils, and we want to encourage that.

Meat Imports

Alistair Burt: If she will make a statement on the progress her Department has made in reforming the regulations governing meat imports.

Margaret Beckett: Controls on the import of meat into the United Kingdom from non-EU countries are covered by EU legislation. In the light of the foot and mouth outbreak, we have strengthened the enforcement powers of local authorities in respect of meat that could not have been imported legally, but is found on sale in the UK. We have also taken a number of steps, working with other Departments involved, to improve our ability to prevent and detect illegal imports. We are continuing to keep all measures under review, and are developing other options for further action.

Alistair Burt: Is the right hon. Lady aware of a case about which I have written to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the context of his responsibility for Customs, concerning my constituent Sue Parke, who travelled from Gatwick on 14 September, three days after the New York outrage? She observed a man—who had reached the train untroubled by Customs—loading some eight 4 ft-square containers into the passenger carriage. She wrote to me
	"The smell of either rotting fish or meat was so strong we immediately stood up to move further up the carriage . . . The smell was so vile it reached half way down the carriage. The lady next to me felt sick. She apologised for opening the window and letting in the cold night air but I too was glad of some relief from the stench. We travelled for 35 minutes like this."
	My constituent asks me, and I ask the right hon. Lady, why—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State can answer the question now.

Alistair Burt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I told the hon. Gentleman that he had finished asking his question; he must sit down.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) knows that we are a trading nation. We export and we also allow imports, which must be properly controlled and handled according to the rules. I shall certainly see whether we can discover any information, and should be grateful if he would let us have as much detail as possible about his constituent's case, which seems extraordinary. While we encourage the speedy and effective detection and pursuit of such issues, I must admit that, at first glance, such a case appears inexplicable.

David Kidney: When I held a joint consultation with the Women's Farming and Food Union, it raised this issue. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) is asking why, when millions of us pass in and out of the country, we never see any evidence that the Government think that this is a serious issue.

Margaret Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that we do not have sufficiently effective publicity—but there is work in hand—to highlight the issue to people as they land in the UK. British travellers would not come into contact with this, but when people make arrangements to come to the UK, they are given advice and information about what is, and is not, legal by travel agents and, for those who require visas, by consulates and embassies; they are told firmly what they are, and are not, allowed to do by those outlets. I share my hon. Friend's view that more should be done as people arrive at the port of entry, and we are working on that.

Peter Ainsworth: This afternoon, two Ministers have warned that we need to be on our guard against future outbreaks of foot and mouth. Does not the biggest single risk of another outbreak of foot and mouth come from the fact that we could import it again, simply because our import controls are slack?
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) raised a constituency case, but the right hon. Lady should know about recent reports that on one flight arriving at Gatwick airport from Africa, 110 people were found to be carrying illegal imports. That was a spot check. How many imports are coming in that are not found? There are reports of suitcases dripping with blood and covered with maggots or packed with bush rats, antelope meat and monkeys. Who on earth eats that stuff, I cannot imagine. When will the Government begin to take the issue seriously? Is it not the case that as things stand, we could re-import foot and mouth again tomorrow?

Margaret Beckett: It is not the case that our import controls are lax—[Interruption.] Let me remind Opposition Members that we have strengthened the import controls that we inherited from them. Our import control procedures have been in existence for many years. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; all of us are dismayed when we read the stories about the amount of meat that some individuals bring in. However, the reason why he knows about those stories—[Interruption.] He says that there should not be any, but people are allowed to bring in such material under European Union rules.
	I have raised the issue with the relevant Commissioner, and pressed him to look again at that aspect of the rules. The reason why the hon. Gentleman can cite such cases is that the meat has been identified, detected and found. Many of the stories that are used to create concern and alarm are evidence of the effectiveness of our import controls.

Paddy Tipping: The Secretary of State made it clear that she has already strengthened controls, but needs to do more. However, any campaign on import controls could lose an important focus if it does not heed the lesson of the foot and mouth crisis that we need strong biosecurity measures in our own country. Any campaign that does not recognise that will fail.

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is correct. We cannot afford to neglect any aspect of preventing such disease or its spread. He is right to identify that point, however the foot and mouth outbreak started; we do not yet know, and perhaps will never be absolutely certain how it began. It could have been caused by an import that had come into the country via another member state, but however it came here, biosecurity issues, farming practices, movement of animals and so on are all matters that must be handled and are part of prevention and control.

Cod Stocks

John Wilkinson: If she will make an assessment of the impact of conservation measures for cod stocks in (a) Icelandic and Norwegian waters and (b) waters under the aegis of the EU common fisheries policy.

Elliot Morley: Assessment of cod stocks in Icelandic and Norwegian waters is a matter for those Governments. The package of technical measures for rebuilding certain cod stocks in EU waters that came into operation on 1 January 2002 is designed to make a contribution to bringing stocks back to within safe biological limits, but it will be some time before fisheries scientists will be able to assess the results.

John Wilkinson: Is not the assessment of cod stocks in Icelandic and Norwegian waters essential for proper evaluation of the total potential catch of Atlantic cod? Is it not a fact that the common fisheries policy has been an economic and ecological disaster of the first magnitude? If we were a free independent country and conserved our stocks as well as the Norwegians and Icelanders do, the cod stocks in the north Atlantic would not be under such threat.

Elliot Morley: Both Norway and Iceland have had their problems with fisheries management and indeed with fisheries conservation. I might remind the hon. Gentleman that this country managed to wipe out its herring stocks before it joined the common fisheries policy. Although the CFP of course has its failings and weaknesses, which we want to address from the UK, whatever the arguments about it, we must have a Europe-wide fisheries conservation measure. That is essential. We must also have such co-operation on the international front in relation to fish conservation.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call business questions, may I indicate that I am extremely disappointed that we have reached only Question 10 on the Order Paper? The House can co-operate by making sure that we have only brief questions and, of course, brief replies.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: May I ask the Leader of the House for the business for next week?

Robin Cook: I shall be as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker.
	The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 4 February—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to Negotiate a Bilateral Agreement on Asylum with France" followed by a debate entitled "Failures of the Government's Pensions Plans". Both debates will arise on a Government motion, or rather an Opposition one—[Laughter.] We might table a Government amendment, it has to be admitted.
	Tuesday 5 February—Progress on remaining stages of the Education Bill.
	Wednesday 6 February—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Education Bill.
	Thursday 7 February—Remaining stages of the Tax Credits Bill.
	Friday 8 February—Debate on Government measures to regenerate disadvantaged areas on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 11 February—Remaining stages of the Land Registration Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 12 February—Remaining stages of the Employment Bill.
	Wednesday 13 February—Remaining stages of the British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords].
	Thursday 14 February—Debate on Defence Policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 15 February—The House will not be sitting.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised with me last week the future of the St. David's day debate. I am pleased to respond to him and announce that there will be a Welsh debate on 28 February, which is as near as I can get it to St. David's day.
	The House will also wish to be reminded that, as the Chancellor has already announced, the Budget will take place on Wednesday 17 April.
	On Tuesday 12 February, there will be a debate relating to the fight against fraud in European Standing Committee B, and on Wednesday 13 February, there will be a debate relating to the equal treatment directive in European Standing Committee B.
	[Tuesday 12 February 2002:
	European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: 9208/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—the fight against fraud; Commission's Twelfth Annual Report 2000; 9207/01, Protecting the Communities' Financial Interests—the fight against fraud; Action Plan for 2001-2003; Unnumbered Document, Court of Auditors' annual Report 2000. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xii, (2001-02).
	Wednesday 13 February:
	European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 14492/01, Commission Opinion on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the draft Directive amending the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 152-xii (2001-02).]

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House, especially for his announcement about the St. David's day debate. At least he had the courtesy to announce it to the House and it was not leaked. Pennies drop at varying rates in this place.
	Can I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 226, which he will know has today attracted 292 signatures and counting?
	[That this House supports the democratic principle that any revised Second Chamber of Parliament should be wholly or substantially elected.]
	The motion was tabled by some of the Leader of the House's hon. Friends but it is now supported by nearly 300 hon. Members. As he knows, this is the final day for replies to the consultation on his White Paper on reform of the upper House. In light of the spectacular support for that early-day motion, can he give us an early statement on the Government's intentions as to where we go from here following the disastrous White Paper? The Government are now totally adrift from opinion in the House of Commons and elsewhere.
	The Leader of the House has announced that on Monday there will be an Opposition day debate on asylum. I am told that a White Paper on asylum may be imminent. Whether he can confirm that or not, will he pledge that any White Paper on asylum, or indeed on anything else, will be announced first in the House and there will be no spinning, leaking or anything else ahead of its announcement in the House and the opportunity for hon. Members to question the appropriate Secretary of State?
	I gather that Lord Birt, who is, apparently, a crony of the Prime Minister and who has been asked by him to do something rather important—namely, to look at the long-term future of our transport system—has refused to appear before the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions. If that is true, is it not yet another example of the utter contempt in which the Prime Minister and his cronies hold the House, its Committees and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Committee, and her colleagues? Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking now that he will use his undoubted influence and respect for the House of Commons to persuade Lord Birt to do what he should be willing to do anyway—to come before the Select Committee and give an account of himself? I hope that we can get that undertaking from the Leader of the House today.
	I remind the Leader of the House that, in relation to the proposed September sittings of the House, he said:
	"I am also advised that there will be roadworks outside the Palace."—[Official Report, 24 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1010.]
	In that connection, has he had discussions with his erstwhile friend, that nice Mayor Livingstone, about the Mayor's plans for extensive alterations to Parliament square? I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to be satisfied that any extensive roadworks initiated by the Mayor relating to Parliament square do not have a serious effect on the ability of the House to perform its functions. I hope that he will be able to report back to us at an early stage on the outcome of his discussions with his nice friend.

Robin Cook: In response to the right hon. Gentleman's initial statement, I am partial to leeks in the pot but we will try to keep them out of the announcements of the business.
	The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that this is the final day for consultation on the Government's White Paper on Lords reform. It would be a bit premature to attempt any statement when the final day has only just arrived. In any case I anticipate that people will wish to make submissions for some time afterwards, but there is no great secret. For the past month, I have said to the House, and indeed to anyone else who would listen, that when consultation finishes we will need a period of reflection in order to establish where the centre of gravity lies behind reform. When we have come to the conclusion of that period of reflection, it will be proper to have a statement in the House.
	I follow the early-day motion with weekly interest to see how many hon. Members have signed it, and I have had a number of individual and collective representations from those who signed it. I listen to all views in the House. I repeat what I have said: once we have reflected on all this, it is important that those who want reform find a proposal behind which they can gather.
	On asylum and immigration, it may help the right hon. Gentleman if I say that I anticipate that there may be a statement to the House next week. We have promised a Bill on asylum and immigration. I anticipate that that will be before the House this Session. We will have ample opportunity to debate those matters.
	On Lord Birt, the Government stand ready to ensure that full evidence is provided by Ministers and senior civil servants. It has not been customary for special advisers to give evidence to Select Committees. I am not aware off hand of a case where an unpaid adviser was summoned to a Select Committee. If that becomes the practice, we may have some difficulty in seeking expert advice from those outside Government ranks.
	On Parliament square, I clocked the point made by the right hon. Gentleman last week. We have a right to be considered in this matter. I am often frustrated by the difficulty of getting from Birdcage walk to Parliament square. I hope that we can achieve an outcome that will make things easier, and I will try to resist anything likely to make things more difficult.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend might be surprised to find that many mean-minded employers have no intention of paying their hourly paid workers for the public holiday to be held for the Queen's jubilee. Is it not time for a debate about when workers are entitled to be paid for public holidays, recognising the fact that we have fewer public holidays than almost any other country in Europe? It is always the hourly paid or the lowest-paid workers who lose the most.

Robin Cook: As my hon. Friend will be aware, we introduced the working time directive which, for the first time, provided a right to paid holidays over Christmas and at times such as Easter for 2 million people who had never had paid holidays at those times. Given that the bank holiday on 4 June is to commemorate Her Majesty's jubilee, we would expect all patriotic employers to ensure that their employees can enjoy that day, and enjoy that day with pay.

Paul Tyler: Can we have an urgent debate to put into context the widespread public and press perception that it is possible, and has been possible for some time, to buy access to and influence over Parliament and Government? In view of the revelations during the past few days from Enron, Arthur Andersen and RMT and now the resignation of Lord Wakeham, which has been announced in the last few minutes, should we not try to achieve a proper sense of direction and perception on these matters? As the Leader of the House will have seen in The Independent this morning, it is important to review the funding of democracy in this country.
	Will the Leader of the House ask for an urgent statement from the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about the apparent lack of clarity over where the £2.2 billion that the Secretary of State announced on Tuesday in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is to come from? He said that the additional money will not be taken from the
	"roads, buses or local transport budgets."—[Official Report, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 151.]
	This morning there was an announcement via a Treasury statement and, to quote The Guardian:
	"Gordon Brown ordered his officials to pull the rug from under Mr. Byers after learning the transport secretary had asserted the deal was secured during a meeting the two men had over the weekend.
	In a terse statement the Treasury denied any conversation had taken place. It also said the £2.2 billion was not new money but part of an allocation announced last April. Officials suggested the £2.2 billion would almost certainly be taken from the roads budget."
	Why should we put up with two Cabinet Ministers making directly contradictory statements within hours of each other?

Robin Cook: We had a long debate on political party funding during the last Session, in which we passed a significant Bill, and we can keep under review whether there is a will in the country or the House to return to the matter. There was a substantial debate only two years ago and I am not sure that there would be an appetite in the House to make it a priority. [Interruption.] I remind the shadow Leader of the House that the chief executive of Enron in Britain went on record this week saying that there had been broadly similar payments to the Conservative party as to the Labour party. The funds given to the Labour party were for the purchase of tables, and were not donations to the party.
	I regard with some mystification why it is thought unusual for a Minister with responsibility for energy to meet representatives from what was, at that time, a major energy company, particularly since the outcome of those discussions was a Green Paper that curtailed rather than expanded the opportunities for Enron within the British market. It is for the hon. Gentleman to explain what BSM received in return for its major donation to the Liberal Democrats. I am sure that we would wish to return to that in some detail if we were to have a further debate on this subject.
	I welcome the extra £2 billion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced is available for the rail industry. The travelling public will be more interested in extra investment in rail and a response to the current crisis than in arguments about who telephoned whom over the weekend.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will realise that I am touched by the concern of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but the reality is that it is increasingly difficult for Select Committees to perform their task of scrutiny properly when advisers who take major decisions and give serious advice to the Prime Minister are apparently not available for questioning. I ask my right hon. Friend seriously to consider the problem. Select Committees are told that decisions relating to Government policy are being taken elsewhere than in the specific Departments that they monitor. If that is so, Select Committees must have the right to call such advisers before them.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, and I am happy to say that I will continue to consider those matters. I recognise that temerity is required, but if I may I will correct her on one point. Advisers do not take major decisions. Decisions are taken by Ministers, and they are assisted in that task by senior civil servants. It is right and welcome that the Government occasionally ask others outside government to look further ahead, on an unpaid basis, than we are able to do from day to day. Such activities do not constitute taking decisions. The people whom the Select Committee should hold to account are those who are going to take the decisions.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware of the great demand for a full debate on Zimbabwe? Such debates have taken place in Westminster Hall, but we surely need a full day's debate in Government time. Every day brings new stories of intimidation, torture and murder of opposition politicians. Draconian laws of the former Zimbabwean Parliament stifle freedom of speech, so how can there be free and fair elections? Why will the Government not act? Is it because they are ashamed that their ethical foreign policy is a shambles?

Robin Cook: Brushing aside for a second the hon. Gentleman's concluding remark, I agree that it is important that this House sends a clear and united message. The situation in Zimbabwe is alarming and deplorable, and the attacks on opposition politicians are outrageous. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that, even if we start now, it will be difficult to ensure that an election held four weeks from now is free and fair. Having said that, we have worked hard through the European Union and the Commonwealth to ensure that external observers are present to try to curb the worst of the intimidation—an approach that the opposition forces in Zimbabwe have warmly welcomed.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has worked hard to be robust on this issue. He attended yesterday's meeting to seek Zimbabwe's expulsion from the Commonwealth, and secured the support of half of those in attendance. However, we have some way to go before we can achieve the unanimous supported needed to secure expulsion.

Jimmy Wray: I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to early-day motion 690 on asthma and schools.
	[That this House recognises that one in seven children has asthma and many children are not getting the support they need at school; believes that children should be able to have immediate access to their inhalers and have a school environment free from dangerous triggers such as tobacco fumes, with members of staff with knowledge to help those in the event of a serious asthma attack; and hopes that more local education authorities will respond to the National Asthma Campaign and implement an asthma policy.]
	The National Asthma Campaign is holding a national asthma day in February. It would be nice to debate the matter in the House, because we seem not to have a policy on asthma with regard to schools.

Robin Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ventilating an issue that is of considerable concern in many areas—particularly the one that he represents. One matter that puzzled me during the years in which I followed health policy—it is now a pressing issue—was the reason for the significant increase in asthma-related cases, especially among our young people. I shall draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will doubtless want to respond to them.

Andrew MacKay: In a week in which beleaguered rail passengers in my constituency have again suffered at the hands of the RMT and its irresponsible industrial action, will the Leader of the House explain why Lord Birt has not appeared before the Select Committee? Is it not true that, according to Standing Orders, a Select Committee can demand that someone appear before it? In an earlier answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Leader of the House said that there was no need for such a person to appear if he was not paid, or if he was just an adviser, but can that be right? Lord Birt is a Member of the other place—a parliamentarian—so surely he can be called upon to appear before the Select Committee.

Robin Cook: The right hon. Gentleman undermines rather than reinforces the case for Lord Birt coming before the Select Committee. Lord Birt has nothing to do with the RMT, South West Trains, or the present strikes. The right hon. Gentleman merely illustrates the danger into which Lord Birt would be sucked if he came before the Select Committee.

Tony Lloyd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the announcements that have postdated this week's debate on the postal services? First, there was a leaked and possibly erroneous rumour that 3,000 of the 9,000 urban sub-post offices were to close. Secondly, the Post Office watchdog made some remarks today about the privatisation of parts of the postal service. Such rumours and remarks are bound to cause massive concern to the public, who want a universal and nationwide postal service. Can we have an early statement on the matter? Does he accept that, when management is not up to scratch, as on the Titanic, the answer is not to scuttle the boat but to get rid of the captain?

Robin Cook: First, what Postcomm published today were proposals for consultation about competition. Most certainly, we will be following the competition proposals and the consultation on them with the closest interest. We fully understand their great significance to the public and to those who use the Post Office. The one imperative in any judgment that we reach is that we must preserve the universal service provided by the Post Office.
	Secondly, there has been no proposal of the sort that has been leaked to the press. If such a proposal were to be made, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would wish to keep the House informed.

Peter Duncan: The Leader of the House will be aware of the imminent arrival of the Boundary Commission proposals for Scotland. I know that the subject is especially close to his heart. Does he agree that the continued stability of this House depends on fair and equitable representation for all parts of the United Kingdom? I know that the right hon. Gentleman moves in lofty circles, so will he play his part in ensuring that the proposals are implemented in time for the next general election? Will he put behind him the electoral interests of the Labour party, and his own search for a seat?

Robin Cook: I am reassured to learn that I move in lofty circles. The Government have complied fully with a commitment that we made when we brought in the Scotland Act 1998. We are now carrying that commitment forward, and I understand that the Boundary Commission may make its first report shortly. It is then a matter for the commission to make progress on the subsequent representation and appeals process, which is set out in statute. If we receive the commission's report in good time, I see no reason why it should not be implemented in time for the next general election. That is our current plan.

Gisela Stuart: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt recall that, earlier this week, the House decided who would be its two representatives to the convention on the future of Europe. I should declare an interest, in that I have the honour to be one. Has my right hon. Friend given any thought as to how those representatives will be supported by the House? They will be representatives of the House and not of the Government, so the House will need to be informed of progress, and to have the opportunity to take part in the debate and shape the convention's decisions. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will give full support to the delegates? Has he had some preliminary thoughts about the shape that that support might take?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend raises the important point of principle that those appointed by this House and the other place to represent Parliament in the convention are representatives of Parliament, and not of the Government. It is therefore important that they receive support from Parliament. I am pleased to say that the Parliament office that we have established in Brussels, in the office of our representative to the European Union, will be happy to support and assist my hon. Friend and her colleague. I know that the Clerks of the House have also invited her to come and see them to discuss how they can make sure that proper resources are available to assist the representatives, in terms of travel arrangements, research and policy briefing. We will be very happy to help in any way that we can.

Derek Conway: Will the Leader of the House assure me that, when the Government publish their response to the consultation exercise on the code of practice for dealing with the remains of the deceased in hospitals, the House will have an opportunity to consider the matter? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the unhelpful and sad case at Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup that involved the disposal of the body of James Fernandez. That baby's death was a tragedy for his parents in the first place, but the subsequent handling of his remains obviously caused them additional sadness. I am sure that the House will extend its sympathy to the family.
	The hospital has committed medical and management teams, and the staff are deeply distressed by the exercise. The Leader of the House will understand why, in the fullness of time, we should have the opportunity to debate the resources, assistance and procedures available to the hospital to ensure that such a eventuality does not occur again.

Robin Cook: The House will wish to echo the hon. Gentleman's deep sympathy and condolences to the parents for what must have been an appalling experience. We all share those views. I also echo the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the staff at the hospital. I have been impressed by the speed and thoroughness with which the hospital management—the trust board—has responded to this appalling event. It has put in place systems to ensure that it cannot happen again. That has to be the right way to respond, but it cannot alleviate the distress caused to the parents.

George Mudie: Will my right hon. Friend use his powers to bring the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry here to make a statement on the Post Office? Since the debate on Tuesday, we have heard that 8,000 post offices face closure as a result of the new benefit changes. Today's announcement by the regulator that within eight weeks one third of the Post Office's businesses will be privatised is a disgrace.
	The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is quoted today in the press as saying that it is not a matter for her but for the regulator. Does the Leader of the House agree that when half the post offices in this country face closure, a process that will accelerate next year, and the regulator announces a change that will push the redundancies in the post offices beyond the 30,000 already announced, that is very much a matter for the Secretary of State? It is certainly a matter of great interest to Labour Members.

Robin Cook: It is, of course, a matter of clear and close interest to the Secretary of State. The regulator is entitled to publish what it wishes to publish, but it could not secure the proposals in the consultation paper without primary legislation. That is very much a matter for the House and for the Government, who will be following that consultation closely.
	On the figures quoted by my hon. Friend for the closure of post offices, I repeat that Ministers have received no such proposals. The House should be careful in interpreting the figures that have appeared in the press so far and will no doubt appear again in the weeks ahead.

Adam Price: The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that today is the first anniversary of the initial announcement of the loss of 3,000 jobs from Corus in south Wales. He will understand, therefore, how shocked we were to read in the Welsh newspapers that at the same time as Corus workers were battling to save their jobs, the Labour party was lining its pockets with a donation of £125,000 from one of Corus's main competitors. It was not for tables or for drinks—it was hard cash from the chairman of Ispat International.
	In the wake of Enron and Andersen, the fear is that the Government's decision not to back the employee buyout was due in part to knowing that a hefty cheque was on its way. We need an urgent statement from the Prime Minister on this. He needs to come clean and not plead the fifth amendment yet again.

Robin Cook: I am not aware of any donation of the kind that the hon. Gentleman describes. I will investigate the matter and make sure that one of my colleagues responds to the hon. Gentleman. However, I find it unlikely that contemplation of any donation from a competitor of Corus would have any bearing on Government decisions on Corus.

Paul Flynn: Given the announcement that cattle markets are about to be reopened, when can we debate early-day motion 750?
	[That this House welcomes the reduction in animal suffering and costs caused by the sale of farm animals through video links, the Internet and direct sales during the enforced closure of animals markets; and calls on the Government to encourage non-market sales in order to reduce risk of infections and to avoid the stress for animals in avoidable journeys and cramped conditions in stock markets.]
	We should congratulate farmers on their ingenuity in finding alternatives to cattle markets by selling their animals via direct farm-to-farm sales, video links and the internet? These methods have been a great improvement in reducing animal suffering and costs. Should we not recall that the main way in which foot and mouth was spread was via animal markets and encourage the use of non-market sales to reduce animal suffering and infections?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend rightly identifies one of the major vectors of foot and mouth in the recent outbreak as the enormous—surprisingly high—distances travelled by sheep and cows to market. If one of the consequences has been to promote more local slaughter and sales, I would regard that as welcome. That step would be helpful in ensuring that we can contain any future outbreak, and I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks.

Michael Jack: This morning, we heard difficult news about the A400M transport aircraft from the BBC. It was suggested that the Germans were about to renege on their obligations to the project and, more disturbingly, that the British Government were looking for alternatives. In light of the problems faced by the aerospace industry, in particular in the north-west of England, may we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Defence to establish the facts of the matter and what this Government are doing to ensure that the German Government honour their obligations?

Robin Cook: I fully understand the problems that the aerospace industry is facing and we have discussed them a number of times in business questions. The right hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing to make the German Government take a particular course of action. We cannot do anything. They are a sovereign Government and will reach their own decision. Of course, we are making strong representations to them and will continue to do so; and we will consider any statement that they make later today.

Dennis Skinner: If there is a debate on the Post Office in the near future, will my right hon. Friend pass on the message that some of us want to know the process and the procedures for sacking regulators? This fellow Corbett, or whatever his name is, has gone too far already. He is going to become an embarrassment to this Government, just like Woodhead before him—we all know what happened to him: he finished up working for The Daily Telegraph and the Tory party. Let us get Corbett out before he causes more damage.

Robin Cook: I am not sure whether The Daily Telegraph is in the market for more columnists, but I am sure it will note what my hon. Friend has said. I fully understand his point. The more cherry-picking of the large commercial contracts by other parts of the market, the more challenging it becomes for the Royal Mail to maintain its universal service. Obviously, that is a matter that must weigh with us when we consider any outcome of the consultation process. In the meantime, I shall ensure that someone furnishes my hon. Friend with a full description of the process of sacking a Postcomm regulator.

Michael Spicer: The Leader of the House will be aware that a growing number of issues are seriously affecting the ability of Members of the Parliament to carry out their job in this house and elsewhere—data protection matters, tax allowances, expenditure on parliamentary trips abroad and so forth. Some of those matters may require legislative changes. Will he allow an early opportunity for this Chamber to debate some of those issues in detail?

Robin Cook: I have had exchanges about a number of those issues with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for keeping me posted on the views of Opposition Back Benchers. I fully share his concern about some of those matters, in particular the way in which the Electoral Commission has pursued the matter of the passes provided to all hon. Members by BAA plc, which is plainly not a political donation in any meaningful sense of the word.
	On data protection, I hope that my last letter to the hon. Gentleman will have been of some assistance. We stand ready to consider whether legislation requires amendment. I hope that we can find a solution to those questions short of primary legislation, but it is important that hon. Members should be able to go about their business and be free to make representations on behalf of their constituents without facing undue legal obstacles.

David Cairns: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the plight of asbestos sufferers who are still awaiting compensation, including some of my constituents? Despite the great efforts of the Secretary of State for Scotland, among others, it appears that every time that we take one step forward in this matter we take two backwards. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an urgent statement or debate that would allow all hon. Members the opportunity to get to the bottom, once and for all, of why it is taking so long for much needed and deserved compensation to get into the hands of those who are afflicted by that terrible disease?

Robin Cook: I am glad that my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to raise on the Floor of the House an issue that is important to him and which he has had diligently pursued for some time. I welcome the fact that that issue has been ventilated in debates in Westminster Hall, which underlines the importance of that Chamber in enabling hon. Members to raise issues of concern to them and their constituents. I will draw my hon. Friend's observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ensure that my hon. Friend receives a further letter.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Leader of the House understands and knows of my deep interest in Zimbabwe, and that he is aware of the affection and respect in which I hold its people. Although I respect the robust position adopted by our Foreign Secretary at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting held yesterday, will the Leader of the House please understand that unless a substantial number of observers and monitors are sent to Zimbabwe now, there is not the slightest chance of a free, transparent and fair election? Inevitably, Zimbabwe would thus be breaching the fundamental principles of membership of the Commonwealth. Will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for a statement to be made to the House as to the precise attitude and position of the Government, and hopefully of the Commonwealth, in respect of Zimbabwe, so that the opposition parties fighting the election can believe that they have some support overseas?

Robin Cook: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about his longstanding interest in this matter. Indeed, I remember him asking questions during my previous incarnation at this Dispatch Box. It is tragic that, in Zimbabwe, President Mugabe portrays Britain as the enemy when in fact there are so many people both in the House and throughout Britain who regard themselves as friends of Zimbabwe and want to see the country prosper.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about our position in respect of electoral observers. Let me again make it clear: we robustly and vigorously insist on the right of the international community to observe those elections and on the right of the ordinary public in Zimbabwe to have that international presence in order to curb some of the intimidation and thuggery to which they are subject, and we shall continue to do all that we can to try to deliver that.

Brian Iddon: I have a registered interest in my question, as patron of the Society of Registration Officers. Last week, through the Economic Secretary, the Government published a White Paper entitled "Civil Registration: Vital Change". It certainly will be vital change. I have heard that the changes may be made by delegated legislation. If that is so, there should be a debate on what will be one of the biggest reforms of the registration service in probably a century. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for such a debate in this place?

Robin Cook: I cannot commit myself on whether the matter will be dealt with by delegated or primary legislation—I am not sighted on that point, although I see no immediate prospect of primary legislation on that important step forward. If it should proceed by delegated legislation, there is provision for the House to debate delegated legislation of importance and substance. My hon. Friend rightly identifies this matter as one of substance and I shall consider his point carefully.

Charles Hendry: The Leader of the House will have seen the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluding that taxes will have to rise by £7 billion if the Government are to meet their spending commitments, and that the Chancellor is in danger of breaching his so-called golden rule—that he will borrow only in order to invest. As we have not held a debate on the economy since the election and as the Budget is still 11 whole weeks away, does the Leader of the House understand why we feel that the House needs a full opportunity to debate the economy? In the light of the IFS report, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need an emergency mini-Budget in the time-honoured tradition of Labour Governments?

Robin Cook: As Leader of the House, I counsel the House not to press for a mini-Budget as well as the real Budget on 17 April—I am not sure that would be an efficient use of the House's time. As for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in my recollection, it has been predicting that taxes would rise for the past four years and has always been wrong.

Eric Joyce: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on the Geneva convention? There has been much comment and debate in the House during the past few weeks on the subject of the al-Qaeda prisoners in Cuba. There has been much confusion over who is actually a prisoner and who should be subject to criminal trial. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that could put British armed forces personnel in danger, and that a debate would help to inform our future discussions about the prisoners in Cuba?

Robin Cook: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes about the legal complexities. However, as I have told the House previously, the nub of the matter is not whether the Geneva convention applies: it is that the prisoners should be treated according to the humanitarian standards that we all recognise and uphold whether or not the convention applies. I am therefore pleased that the Red Cross has now secured a permanent presence at Guantanamo bay and has been able to confirm that the conditions observed there are consistent with the convention.

Alistair Carmichael: I urge the Leader of the House to listen to his own Back Benchers a little more carefully than I fear he has done hitherto today, and to allow an early opportunity for a debate in the House on the future of postal services. In particular, I refer to the proposals announced this morning by Postcomm to deregulate postal services, the first tranche of which deregulation will take place in the next eight weeks. The Leader of the House may be aware that my constituency includes some of the few communities not covered by the universal service obligation. Frankly, we view with alarm the prospect of a deregulated service, which will not be able to serve the more remote island communities that I represent.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, if there is to be a decision to deregulate postal services and to end the universal service obligation, it will be made here in the Chamber? We must not be bounced into such a decision by a body such as Postcomm proposing, as it did this morning, a meaningless decision to take the first step within eight weeks.

Robin Cook: I fully understand the importance of the universal service obligation to the hon. Gentleman's constituency and many others in Scotland—and, indeed, to quite a number of people in the more landward areas in my own constituency. That is why the Government have always made it plain that there is no question of removing the universal service obligation from the Post Office. Postcomm does not make Government policy; nor do we write its documents. Any attempt to undermine the universal service obligation would have to come back to the House and, on the basis of what I have heard this morning—which does not surprise me—I do not anticipate that the House would countenance such a proposal.

David Winnick: Is it not rather strange that the regulator's report should come out just two days after our debate on the Post Office? I was among the Labour MPs who strenuously opposed and voted against the Tories' proposals to privatise the Post Office, and I have not changed my mind in the slightest. I hope that Ministers will seriously reconsider a scheme that would be totally unacceptable to many of us on these Benches.

Robin Cook: Of course I remember my hon. Friend's opposition to the privatisation of the Post Office, particularly as—if I recall correctly—I occupied the Opposition Dispatch Box in those debates. There has been no proposal from the Government on the privatisation of the Post Office. It is only a year or two since we gave the Post Office the commercial freedom that it wanted, so that it could operate in the public sector—with commercial freedom of the kind that it would enjoy in the private sector—and meet the competition. I have listened with interest and care to the points that hon. Members have raised, and I shall certainly draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the deep concern felt in the House.

David Winnick: On this side.

Robin Cook: Well, on both sides, in fairness to my hon. Friend. I always try to build consensus, even if it sometimes eludes me. I repeat that this morning's statement was not made by Government, and it is not Government policy. We had no control over its timing, and I recognise the concern to which it has given rise.

Patrick McLoughlin: Last week, I raised with the Leader of the House an issue relating to correspondence with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Today, I have received the following letter from the Department:
	"You will be aware that the Rt Hon Margaret, Secretary of State at DEFRA, will be in your Constituency on Tuesday 5 February, on a Regional visit to Cumbria. She will open Hartington Hall Youth Hostel."
	Will the Leader of the House inform the Secretary of State that Hartington is in Derbyshire, that her constituency abuts my constituency, and that if she is opening Hartington Hall youth hostel in Cumbria, she is going to be in the wrong place again?

Robin Cook: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be very grateful for that advice, which I will draw to her attention. We will also make sure that the correspondence unit at DEFRA has an adequate map of the British isles.

Stephen McCabe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that children as young as nine are being issued with firearms certificates in this country? Does he share my concern that some shooting bodies, in an effort to boost recruitment, feature children as young as three in magazines and on websites, posing with guns and dead animals, and sometimes smeared with blood? Is it not time that we introduced an age restriction and tougher guidance on children's access to firearms? Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on this matter?

Robin Cook: The whole House will share my surprise that there is access to licensed weapons at the age to which my hon. Friend refers. Weapons are dangerous enough in the hands of some adults, without letting them into the hands of children. I shall certainly draw the important point raised by my hon. Friend to the attention of the Home Office.

Julian Lewis: It is all very well for the Leader of the House to agree with the remarks about Zimbabwe by my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but he shows no sign of urging the Government to grant a debate in Government time or make a statement on the terrible situation there. The Government have done too little, too late to protest about Zimbabwe, and the failure of the Commonwealth to take any action can only lead people to conclude that the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the British Government, taken together, have taken less effective action against Robert Mugabe than did the gay campaigner Peter Tatchell. Will the Leader of the House now promise us a debate or a statement on the terrible situation in Zimbabwe?

Robin Cook: I wholly repudiate what the hon. Gentleman says about our record on Zimbabwe. We have taken every possible step to bring home to the Government of President Mugabe our deep concern and alarm at the state of affairs within the country. We have wound up all economic assistance to that Government, while maintaining humanitarian aid, and we have withdrawn our military team from the country. We have acted against Zimbabwe in the European Union, where we have now secured a consensus in favour of economic sanctions if we do not secure free and fair elections, and we have started a debate in the Commonwealth, in which yesterday we got the support of 50 per cent. of those present. We are vigorously taking action and leading international opinion on this matter. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman does not help his cause or those on whose behalf he claims to be speaking by trying to undermine the degree of the concern felt by the Government and the people.

Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a statement or an early debate on young people's participation in politics? He will know that the UK Youth Parliament had a meeting here yesterday. Surely one of the most important issues facing us all must be the apparent lack of interest in this place shown by our young people. It is one of the most important debates in which we in this Chamber could engage.

Robin Cook: I shall certainly reflect on how we can take forward that discussion among ourselves. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of drawing young people into participation in politics. All of us, whatever view we take of the result and whatever side of the House we sit on, must be concerned about the substantial reduction, at the last election, in the number of young people who voted. We must all find ways in which we can engage their interest and participation to ensure that, next time, there is a higher turnout by young people.

Martin Smyth: I join, on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, the voices in the House calling for further debate on the Post Office.
	I remind the Leader of the House that Scottish Members have in the past complained about too many English Members asking questions at Scottish questions. In fact, on one occasion, a Member said, "I spy strangers." May I press the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, for some time, now, Northern Ireland Members who have tabled questions for answer at Northern Ireland questions have not been coming up in the first five and thus do not get their question answered in the House? I thank the Speaker, who has been very helpful in trying to give Northern Ireland Members an opportunity to speak at Northern Ireland questions. This is an important issue, especially when it appears that some questions have been franchised, and are not those that Northern Ireland Members would want to ask.

Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important principle that this is a United Kingdom Parliament in which all Members are equal. I understand the frustration to which he refers, but I am not sure that it is within the gift of myself, the Speaker or indeed the Clerks to achieve a different outcome. The placing of questions on the Order Paper results from a random ballot, and if we tamper with that ballot, it is not only Northern Ireland questions that I will find myself receiving questions about.

Bob Blizzard: Further to the question that I asked my right hon. Friend on 8 November about Zephyr Cams—a company that is now in receivership—does he agree that it is a scandal that, while the 65 people who have lost their jobs are still owed wages and have not received any redundancy money, with the possibility that the taxpayer may have to pick up the bill, the owner of the company, Mr. Kenny Joseph of Wells Industries, New Jersey, remains unscathed, enjoying the luxury of his multi-million pound apartment in New York and his even more expensive house in The Hamptons? Can we have a debate on insolvency law, especially as that individual did the same sort of thing with two other companies in Weston-super-Mare a few years ago?

Robin Cook: My hon. Friend has raised that distressing case before, and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to ventilate it again in the House; he draws attention to what must be a local scandal in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is currently examining insolvency and bankruptcy law, and I will draw her attention to the observations that my hon. Friend has made about that case.

Christopher Chope: When can we have a debate to discuss the Government's total indifference to the plight of small firms being put out of business by Government regulation? Is the Leader of the House aware of the plight of firms involved in the British embalming industry and the impact on that industry of the biocide products directive? Is he aware that, in the opinion of the British Institute of Embalmers, the regulation will,
	"in the case of funeral businesses, turn the clock back at least 100 years to the bad old days of rotting corpses being commonplace at the funeral"?
	Does it not show absolute contempt for that industry that I wrote to the Secretary of State seven weeks ago and he has not even had the courtesy to reply to the concerns that I expressed on behalf of that industry and an individual embalmer in my constituency?

Robin Cook: I must confess that I am not up to speed on the present position in relation to the British embalming industry, but I shall try to rectify that as quickly as I can after this exchange. I will certainly speak to the appropriate Secretary of State to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets his reply. I can assure the House that the Government do not intend, as he put it, to return to the days of rotting corpses at the time of the funeral. We will certainly ensure that that does not happen.

Shona McIsaac: Given that the 400th anniversary of the gunpowder plot will occur in 2005, will my right hon. Friend consider commemorating that anniversary by restricting the sale of explosives in the form of fireworks to the general public, as has been eloquently articulated in early-day motions 346, 419 and 682, which have been signed by many hon. Members from both sides of the House. The first of them reads:
	[That this House notes the increasing nuisance caused by reckless and dangerous use of fireworks, and that the sale of fireworks is taking place for many weeks before 5th November; further notes that the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot will occur in 2005; and believes that before that date the Government should bring forward legislation better to regulate and restrict the sale of fireworks.]

Robin Cook: I am fully aware of the deep concern in the House about the sale of fireworks and the importance of ensuring that they are properly regulated and that there is proper safety for our constituents. We all know of local cases where things have gone tragically wrong. I will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to the appropriate Secretary of State to ensure that we consider all that can done. I am not entirely sure that it would be wise to start to plan now for a big event to celebrate the gunpowder plot in 2005; some people could probably think of ways to celebrate it that the House would not wish to encourage.

Mark Simmonds: Will the Leader of the House consider holding an urgent debate on illegal hare coursing—an issue of great concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House? Gangs of thugs currently roam the countryside, intimidating residents and torching the yards of farmers who try to stop them rampaging across fields full of crops. That is completely unacceptable, and I would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he could arrange an urgent debate, because the police fully support a change in the anachronistic laws that currently cover those crimes.

Shona McIsaac: What about hunting?

Robin Cook: May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that—whatever view we may take of hunting, which is legal—hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no basis on which any of us should countenance illegal hunting of the kind that he describes. I will certainly ensure that we reflect on the point that he makes, to find out whether we can ensure that it is covered at an appropriate time in future.

Mark Francois: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the treatment of cancer patients in the national health service? Such a debate would provide the House with an opportunity to debate the Government's proposals to run down cancer services at Southend hospital, thus forcing many patients, many of whom are elderly, to travel possibly as far as Suffolk for their treatment. That is a matter of great concern to all residents in south-east Essex, so I wonder whether time can be found for such an important debate.

Robin Cook: I am not aware that the House is short of opportunities to debate the health service, and I am confident that it will continue to remain high on our agenda. On cancer services, I remind the hon. Gentleman—I am sure that he is aware of this but it may have slipped his mind—that there is a substantial programme for the expansion of oncology services, and specifically for the expansion of oncology specialist consultants. We shall continue to press ahead with that. I cannot comment on the decision taken by his local health authority on local services, but the national picture is one of improvement.

Pete Wishart: As the Leader of the House is no doubt aware, Arthur Andersen is involved in 37 of the Government's private finance initiative projects, and Ministers have referred to the Andersen report on 44 occasions in support of the private finance initiative. Could we therefore have an early statement about the status of the Government's PFI, given the extremely serious allegations of corporate malpractice by Arthur Andersen?

Robin Cook: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his arithmetic in counting up references by Ministers to Arthur Andersen. I remind him that Arthur Andersen receives a smaller number of Government contracts than many other major accountancy firms, and that the PFI has been examined not only by Arthur Andersen but, as the Prime Minister reminded the House, by PricewaterhouseCoopers and by the National Audit Office, which is a public sector body that invigilates Government decisions. They have all reached the same conclusion—that the PFI provides value for money.

Mark Field: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for granting several debates in recent weeks in Westminster Hall in relation to London infrastructure issues—in particular, the congestion charge, the London underground and the funding of the Metropolitan police. However, will the Leader of the House ensure, as a matter of urgency, that the House has a full debate on the entirety of London infrastructure, because the issue causes great concern not only to London's 13 Conservative Members but to Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Members?

Robin Cook: I announced earlier that, according to tradition, we would have a debate on Wales on St. David's day. I am aware that other parts of the United Kingdom may also want a debate to examine their regional issues, and I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Hugh Robertson: This week has seen not only the state of the union address in the United States, which has implications for the fight against terrorism, but the visit of Mr. Hamid Karzai to London and the continued participation of our forces in operations in southern Afghanistan and with the security force there. The Leader of the House said that there would be an Adjournment debate on defence. However, can time be found to debate the war against terrorism and, especially, Afghanistan—we have not done so for some time—not least so that our service men involved in those operations know that they are at the forefront of our thoughts?

Robin Cook: I am confident that next week's debate will make it clear that British servicemen, especially those who are on service abroad, are at the forefront of the thoughts of the Government and the House. I was present when Hamid Karzai addressed the Cabinet this morning. His speech was impressive. There is a strong commitment to making sure that we rebuild his country so that it does not again become a threat to other nations, whether through terrorism or through the export of drugs.
	I can report to the House that Mr. Karzai expressed warm appreciation of the role that Britain has played in securing that success in Afghanistan. I am tempted to have a further debate on international terrorism so as to explore the relation between that and the speech that I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is giving today, which offers a narrow definition of the national interest in terms of defence. Such a definition would not have made it possible for us to do what we have done in Afghanistan.

Evan Harris: At last week's business questions, I asked, in the context of the Adoption and Children Bill which will shortly come back to the House, whether the Government will support moves to enable unmarried couples to apply for joint adoption of children. The Leader of the House said that
	"the Government's position . . . is that the interests and welfare of the child must always come first."—[Official Report, 24 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 1023.]
	The vast majority of the constituent members of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering believe that it can be in the best interests of the welfare of the child if unmarried couples are allowed to apply for adoption and if the merits of their case are considered by the courts and adoption agencies.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore clarify that the Government will support an amendment to allow such couples to apply for adoption, or at least provide a free vote in the light of the cross-party amendment that was tabled in my name? Given that the amendment has received the support of Labour Members and Conservative Members, it should be allowed to be considered without a Whip being applied, at least on Government Members.

Robin Cook: I would not want the remark that I made last week to be read as ruling out adoption by unmarried couples. Indeed, on the contrary, I thought that I was saying that we should judge each case on its merits and ensure that at the end of the day the best solution is found for the child. I am sure that any discussion during the remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill will reflect that.

Mark Hoban: In Fareham, there is one NHS dental practice and one dental access centre to cope with the dentistry needs of nearly 100,000 people. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the crisis in NHS dentistry, which affects many constituencies and not just mine?

Robin Cook: I am well aware of the problems in the dentistry service. They of course reflect more than anything else the way in which the previous Administration ratcheted up charges for NHS dentistry to the point where, for many patients, it was not worth while going on the NHS, and many were then forced to go private, as were many of the dentists. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address some remarks to the team in office during that period.

Points of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know better than anyone the contents of Standing Order No. 152 relating to Select Committees, in which it says that they
	"shall have power . . . to send for persons, papers and records".
	You will similarly know that Erskine May says on page 647, among other things, that
	"when a select committee has the power to send for persons, that power is unqualified".
	Flowing from that, could you remind the House and the Leader of the House that very few people are exempted from the powers that we—the House of Commons—have given Select Committees? Among the very small groups exempted, as it happens, are Members of the upper House, which makes one wonder whether the Prime Minister selected a Member of the other House to be a special adviser on transport precisely to give him that peculiar immunity—but that is a matter not for you, Mr. Speaker, but for the Prime Minister.
	I ask you to clarify one important matter. The Leader of the House, no less, appeared to imply in one of his earlier statements that in some mysterious way special advisers and unpaid advisers to the Government should not and may not be summoned to appear before Select Committees. Will you confirm that the contents of Standing Order No. 152 and of Erskine May entitle and empower Select Committees to summon anyone other than Members of this House and the House of Lords to appear before them to give evidence?

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that a Select Committee of this House is currently examining precisely what role Select Committees should have. In view of the concern among members of all parties that Select Committees should be allowed to do their job properly and to scrutinise the work of Government, will you take it on yourself to tell the Modernisation Committee that, if there are loopholes in the Standing Orders, as implied a few minutes ago, they should be assessed again in order to ensure that the views expressed by the Chairman of the Select Committee concerned and of members of all parties are urgently considered?
	Is it not clear that although the witness concerned may not be able to give the Select Committee the results of his study, he should at least be able to appear before that Committee to indicate his remit, the advice and support that he has received, and what job he is doing, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has indicated that the purpose of the exercise is just to keep Lord Birt occupied?

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of the Select Committee concerned will have heard the hon. Gentleman's comments.
	I say to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, who gave me some notice of his point of order, that a Committee's power to send for persons other than Members of either House is not limited in this way. Generally, of course, witnesses attend Committees without compulsion, sometimes after discussion. Full details are set out on page 646 of Erskine May and later pages.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
	That, pursuant to the report of 24th January 2002 from Standing Committee D, the Order of 8th January 2002 (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme)) shall be varied as follows—

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two allotted days.
	3. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
	5. An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the day.— [Mr. Heppell.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Eligibility for travel concessions: age

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 5, at end insert—
	'(1A) In section 94(1) of the Transport Act 1985 (administration of schemes: reimbursement, etc), after paragraph (a), there is inserted—
	"(aa) the method by which the authority is to be reimbursed, whether through the Revenue Support Grant or otherwise, in respect of any expenditure arising from the operation of the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002.".'.
	The Bill is narrowly drafted and it was with only some ingenuity that we managed to table an acceptable amendment. A layman may find its purpose more clearly set out in new clause 1, which states:
	"The Secretary of State shall reimburse each local authority for the full and actual cost of any concessionary fares scheme by special or specific grant rather than through the Standard Spending Assessment."
	The Bill provides for additional costs to be reimbursed through the normal SSA mechanism. The full compliance cost has been subject to debate. It was originally estimated to be £50 million. On receiving better particulars, however, the Government increased it to about £54 million, and I hope that that is the full cost.
	The problem is that some small local authorities—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will raise the case of his particular authority—receive no reimbursement through the SSA system. The Government are inflicting an imposition that is one of a long list of impositions that they have placed on local authorities that are not being fully funded. The best value initiative is the most expensive, but others, such as the increased cost of pensions as a result of the abolition of additional advance corporation tax requirements, are also a problem.
	The Bill imposes a requirement on local authorities and not all of them will be fully reimbursed for implementing it. That is not true of some larger metropolitan authorities. Under the SSA, a global figure is calculated for each authority and included in the rate support grant settlement each year. Whereas a large chunk of money will be allocated to the larger metropolitan authorities, a small amount, or none at all, will be allocated to smaller authorities.

Julian Brazier: Is that not the story of local government across the board? Broadbrush figures are produced, as in this case; no effort is made afterwards to discover whether they are fair; and smaller and typically rural authorities almost always lose out.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right: smaller and largely rural authorities are likely to lose out.
	Having outlined the problem, let me turn to the solution. The amendment would ensure that local authorities are specifically reimbursed for the actual costs that they incur. That is a simple requirement. If the Government are to fund the scheme in full, it should be largely revenue neutral. Some larger metropolitan authorities will be overcompensated and other authorities will be undercompensated, so the net cost should be little, if any.
	The Government have increased a number of special grants. Surely it would be very simple either to allocate a block of money through the SSA system and make a reimbursement afterwards, or to let authorities make an estimate at the beginning of each financial year, in which case an adjustment could be made before the next financial year on production of properly audited records of the scheme's costs.
	We consider the amendment to be eminently fair and eminently workable. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says.

Christopher Chope: As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), my purpose in tabling the amendment was to draw attention to a gross and unjust anomaly affecting the two district councils in my constituency, Christchurch and East Dorset. The concessionary fares legislation in the Transport Act 2000, implemented last year, has required them to incur additional costs that are some £250,000 higher than the Government's so-called reimbursement. That is very unsatisfactory.
	The amendment would add to the list of matters in respect of which regulations can be made under section 94(1) of the Transport Act 1985, and would enable the Secretary of State to produce regulations relating to the method by which an authority responsible for the administration of a travel concession scheme is reimbursed in respect of any expenditure arising from the operation of the Bill.
	We cannot do anything in this Bill about what has happened as a result of the earlier legislation. What we can do is try to prevent the Government from making the same mistake again. Obviously, extending the scheme to cover men aged between 60 and 65 as well as those over 65 will involve an additional cost. It was estimated for the purposes of the 2000 Act that local authorities' total costs would be £54 million. At the time, the Government said that they thought it fair for Government to pick up the tab—for the national taxpayer to pay; because this was Government policy, they would reimburse local authorities.
	If we ascribe to the word "reimbursement" the meaning it is assumed to have in common English parlance, it means giving back to an individual or an organisation money that that individual or organisation has spent on a particular project or for a particular purpose.

Julian Brazier: Surely my hon. Friend does not wish to stretch the House's imagination by suggesting that the Government use English in the way in which most of us are accustomed to use it.

Christopher Chope: That is an excellent point.
	It is interesting that the Minister for Transport is not replying to this debate, because he dealt with the issue in Committee. During the Committee's first sitting, he said
	"The Government have to deal with a different dilemma—to decide the extent to which national minimum standards are set and to deal with the financial consequences of that and of ensuring that local councils do not lose money."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 26.]
	If that is indeed the Government's objective, they manifestly failed to deliver on it in relation to the original scheme. They already have the power to change the reimbursement system—the amendment is not necessary in that regard—but they have decided not to do so. I do not understand why, but I suspect that the councils that are losing out as a result of this new Government imposition are largely Conservative-controlled, and those which will gain disproportionately, and have already done so, are Labour-controlled.
	That is not an academic or pedantic point of debate; it is one of substance and may significantly affect council tax payers in my area. At the moment, East Dorset district council is spending £160,000 a year on concessionary travel as a result of the Government's minimum statutory standard, in addition to the £97,000 that it has previously spent on its local discretionary targeted scheme. There are a lot of pensioners in East Dorset—22,740, representing more than 25 per cent. of the population. How much did East Dorset district council get back as a contribution to the additional cost of £160,000? The answer is a big round zero; it got nothing back at all because it does not get any revenue support grant, just redistributed business rates. The idea that the Government are going to reimburse East Dorset district council and its council tax payers for the cost of those concessionary fares is pie in the sky.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that his small district council will be required by law to provide those schemes? The de facto situation is that it is not being fully reimbursed, so it will have to make up the difference with an even bigger increase in council tax. I believe that my hon. Friend's local authority is already proposing one of the larger rises in council tax in the country in any case.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. East Dorset district council is not getting back any money at all from the Government to compensate for the additional statutory duty placed on it by concessionary fares legislation. Under the Bill, additional costs will be incurred and, again, the council will not receive any additional money from the Government. Ironically, the additional cost of £160,000 must be paid for by council tax payers, many of whom are pensioners. The Minister will know that the impact of council tax on pensioners is twice as severe as it is for people who have not yet reached pensionable age. As I said in the House the other day, as a result of Labour policies, more than 1 million pensioners now spend more than 10 per cent. of their disposable income on council tax. The position for East Dorset residents is getting worse as a result of those Government impositions.
	The situation in Christchurch is a little better. The Minister may know that we have 14,287 pensioners, constituting 32 per cent. of our population. Christchurch borough council spent £74,000 on a targeted concessionary fares scheme before legislation was introduced. In the current year, it had to make an additional budget provision of £93,000 for the mandatory scheme, which was restricted to travel within the borough boundary. That limited and narrow scheme did not go down well with local people, who much preferred the previous scheme, which offered more generous concessions for those in greatest need. The consequence now is that Christchurch borough council is thinking about whether it can afford to introduce a Dorset-wide scheme. If it did so, however, the costs would increase from an additional £93,000 to an additional £150,000 a year. How much do you think the council received in reimbursement under the revenue support grant formula, Madam Deputy Speaker? It received £20,000 in respect of additional costs of £93,000—costs that will continue to increase as a result of the new statutory requirements in the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: My concern is that council tax will have to be increased most in the areas where the largest number of pensioners live and that those who win on their bus passes will therefore lose when they get their council tax bill. Does my hon. Friend share that concern?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The largest proportion of my correspondence is currently from pensioners on fixed incomes who are again faced with the prospect of council tax increases that are significantly above the rate of inflation and far higher than their pension increases will be. That is happening at a time when the interest on their savings and investments is declining significantly as a result of low inflation. I enthusiastically support the policy of low inflation, but it has had a devastating impact on the budgetary arrangements of a number of pensioners who had planned on the basis that their investments would produce a rather higher yield than that which they are now receiving. In order to pay for these new impositions, such pensioners are having to cut back on other items of expenditure. Council taxes are, by definition, unavoidable, so they have the first call on the limited resources of the individuals concerned.
	In Committee, the Minister for Transport said:
	"We are committed to the new burdens principle, which means that we will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost that they face as a result of local authority concessionary fare schemes requiring action under the Bill."
	He went on to say:
	"If it is an existing scheme that must be amended to comply with the Bill, the Government will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 30.]
	Unfortunately, it does not appear that that will happen. The amendment gives us the opportunity to press the Under-Secretary for a commitment that she will reimburse local authorities for the extra cost. We all know that the House has a system whereby hon. Members are reimbursed out of taxpayers' money for the cost of stationery and office equipment. It would be extraordinary if, in pursuance of the principle of reimbursement, the House authorities said that some hon. Members were to receive more than they had spent and that others were to receive less or indeed nothing. If the word "reimbursement" means anything, surely it is putting the local authorities or individuals in the position in which they would have been before the new imposition. If the new burdens principle to which the Minister for Transport referred means anything, surely it should apply to each local authority on an equal basis. I cannot believe that that principle was intended to mean that the burden on one local authority would be reduced by imposing fresh burdens on another.
	The Minister for Transport used opaque expressions in Committee to try to parry the probing questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cotswold and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). He said:
	"The mechanism will be that the extra costs will be fed into the rate support grant, at the lower end of the environment protection and cultural services block. All other things being equal, local authorities will broadly receive additional funding in proportion to their current share of the EPCS local tier."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked:
	"Is the Minister saying . . . that he will pay to authorities—broadly or otherwise—only the sum that enables them to pay for the minimum laid down by the Government?"
	The Minister for Transport said:
	"No. We are saying clearly that the change in legislation places an additional burden on local authorities. Accordingly, the Government will make money available to cover that additional cost."
	I see the Under-Secretary nodding. I hope that that indicates that she will undertake on behalf of the Government to reimburse East Dorset district council and Christchurch borough council for the additional costs of the new statutory requirements imposed by the Government.
	The Minister for Transport went on to say:
	"We are in discussion with the local authorities as regards the methodology involved, following the well-established procedure for the rate support grant. If that procedure throws up significant anomalies, local authorities, as the hon. Gentleman will probably accept, will not be backward about raising the issue."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 27-29.]
	I quote extensively from what the Minister for Transport said because I do not want the Under-Secretary to start using the same language. That language was no doubt designed to give the impression of reasonableness and to comfort the victims of unjust distribution, but effectively the words were a sham; indeed they were a confidence trick calculated to deceive. We know that the procedure for reimbursing local authorities under existing legislation has thrown up significant anomalies, some of which I have drawn to the House's attention already and which continue to be drawn to the Government's attention by local authorities and local authority associations. What are the Government doing about it? Absolutely nothing. That is totally unacceptable. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have some words of comfort for my local authorities and citizens in my area.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for the amendment. Is he aware that the Minister for the Environment recently said that
	"under the previous Government . . . more and more burdens were placed on local authorities and allegedly funded from efficiency savings."
	This is the important bit:
	"We"—
	that is the Government—
	"are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
	Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Minister for the Environment made that statement to the House, there is no reason why the Government should not accept the amendment?

Christopher Chope: I agree absolutely. The trouble with the Government is that they consistently say one thing and do another, and they use words ambiguously to give people a misleading impression. We are not talking about any additional costs to Government. All we are talking about is a fair distribution of the costs that are incurred by local authorities as a result of Government-imposed legislation and ending the two-tier system. Today the financial services ombudsman has had something to say about the two-tier system operating in the Halifax building society. The Government have been presiding over a multi-tier system for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of concessionary fares, which is totally unjust.
	It is not as though we are asking the earth. There is already a system in place to reimburse London authorities for the actual costs of concessionary fares, rather than the notional or pooled costs, so there is no reason why the Government could not introduce a system that reimbursed local authorities for the actual costs of the statutory concessionary fare scheme, rather than using the formulaic system of distribution which is so unjust.
	I had no quarrels with the old system, under which concessionary fares were regarded as a matter for local discretion. The local authority could decide how much money to spend on concessionary fares and what sort of scheme to operate. In so far as they were able to draw on resources in the environmental services block grant, they could do so.
	The Government changed the rules and there is now no option for local authorities but to comply with the new rigid and centrally imposed rules. It is right and proper that local authorities should be reimbursed accordingly. As I said at the outset, this gives the Government an opportunity to admit that they have made a mistake, that they are willing to learn from it, and that, from now on, they will reimburse all the local authority costs incurred as a result of the legislation. If they did so, it would enable councils such as Christchurch and East Dorset to impose much lower council tax increases next year than are currently in prospect.
	During yesterday's debate on the revenue support grant and the level of the finance settlement, the Minister for Local Government said that the Government were being generous to local authorities. Some of us were left with the impression that the Minister was more generous to some local authorities than to others. Today, the Under–Secretary has an opportunity to demonstrate by her actions and words that she believes in justice and equity for local authorities and that she accepts that it is unfair that some local authorities should benefit by more than the costs they incur while others receive less than their costs. The amendment is a simple and equitable proposition and I hope that the Minister will accede to it.

Henry Bellingham: I support the amendment and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). It would be perverse in the extreme if the Government did not reimburse local authorities. As my hon. Friend said, some local authorities have had to impose inflation- busting council tax increases over the past few years. In my area of west Norfolk we have consistently had council tax increases of about 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. over the past five or six years.
	This is not just a problem for Norfolk county council. My local borough council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk, has not been getting a fair deal from the Government. Interestingly, the Labour leader of the local borough council explained in a letter to the local press the other day that the council tax in our area will have to go up by so much because the Government have not given Norfolk a fair enough deal. That is why it is vital that the amendment is supported and that the Government reimburse local authorities.
	Will the Minister look at the words of the Minister for the Environment, who said:
	"under the previous Government . . . more and more burdens were placed on local authorities and allegedly funded from efficiency savings. We are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded. That is the Government's policy."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
	That is a good reason for the Under-Secretary to agree with what we are saying.
	I support the amendment, as do many of my constituents. My constituency is similar in many ways to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in that there are many elderly retired people, especially along the Norfolk coast in villages and towns such as Brancaster, the Burnhams and Hunstanton. Many of them are retired couples from places such as London where they have enjoyed concessionary fares, often amounting to 100 per cent. They are disappointed to receive only a 50 per cent. reduction in my area. If they find that this Bill does not benefit them in the way that is intended because local authorities will not be reimbursed, they will be very disappointed.
	Unfortunately, I say all that in the context of declining bus services—the picture throughout most rural counties. We all know that 15 or 20 years ago we saw double-decker buses trundling around country lanes with one or two people on board. Every village had a regular bus service. It is clear that those days could not continue, but unfortunately many bus companies have not shown enough imagination and have responded inadequately to the demands and requirements of local communities.
	In west Norfolk, communities have been cut off as a result of reductions in bus services. I am thinking in particular of two cases that have arisen since my return to the House, one of which involves the hamlet of Gayton Thorpe, where the bus service has been abandoned completely. Only last week, I received a letter from a constituent who lives in the village of Tilney All Saints, which until recently enjoyed a reasonable bus service. Now, there are only two morning buses from Tilney All Saints to King's Lynn, and only one returning to the village in the evening, which leaves King's Lynn at 4.45 pm. The bus goes through the northern part of the village, but the constituent who wrote to me lives in the southern part. Her daughter attends the local College of West Anglia, where she is training to be a chef. On leaving the bus she has to walk more than half a mile, which is a long way for a student in the dark.
	The Government are attempting to do what all of us feel is the right thing, but if they fail completely to reimburse local authorities and penalise constituents such as mine through higher council tax, they will be making a big mistake. I hope that the Minister will look at our amendment sympathetically and respond to the detailed and technical points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, which I wholly endorse, and to some of my more general points.

Chris Grayling: I begin by apologising to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for arriving late for the start of this debate. Today has been rather frenetic because of the launch of the Select Committee report on the rail industry, but happily we will be discussing this afternoon another subject that is close to the hearts of me and my constituents.
	Members will know that the constituency of Epsom and Ewell lies just beyond the London boundary to the south. My constituents and Surrey county council—our local transport authority—face real problems in the provision of bus transportation, which will be exacerbated if the Bill is enacted and fails to deliver full reimbursement to authorities throughout the country. It was particularly disturbing to discover in Committee that, despite being pressed to do so, the Government were unable to give a clear, unequivocal and categorical commitment that they will reimburse every local authority for all the costs associated with changing the scheme under the Bill.
	I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to make such a commitment, because without it local authorities such as mine will have, in effect, two options—to cut other services or to increase council tax. That seems a wholly inappropriate burden to place on them at this time. In the case of Surrey county council, it is especially inappropriate, given the huge disparities in public support for Surrey and neighbouring London. Yesterday, the Minister kindly sent me a letter giving details on this issue. According to it, the Mayor is allocated £714 million a year for public transport, which will rise to just over £1 billion next year. In comparison, the sums allocated specifically to bus services in counties outside London are minuscule. Even wrapped together, all the transport budgets for all other authorities in the south-east will receive only £179 million for local transport projects in 2002-03.
	In other words, under the Mayor's leadership local authorities across the border in London have a sum to distribute for transport support that is more than five times greater than that allocated to the home counties. The consequences of that disparity are becoming all too clear in the provision of concessionary fare schemes and of more general bus services.
	Most particularly, the disparity's consequences are evident in the loss of a number of operators running services across the boundaries into London. They have been driven out of business by competitors in London that benefit from the substantial subsidy available to them.
	The problem will get worse if the Minister goes ahead with the Bill as it stands. In effect, if the Government fail to deliver full reimbursement to local authorities for the cost of the scheme, more transport money will be taken away from authorities outside London. I believe that the Government should fulfil what I believe is their duty to reimburse, as local authorities outside London will be less able to deliver the support to bus services that their counterparts across the border in London can deliver.
	As a consequence, services will continue to lose out financially. Operators will find it more difficult to make money on routes, and will tend to walk away from the business. The people to lose out will not be the vast majority of my constituents who use cars, but the schoolchildren and pensioners who depend on the buses for their daily transportation. They can ill afford to see the buses disappear.
	It has been a matter of great concern to me that such a large disparity exists between the public support given to bus operators in London—and to local authorities there to enable them to support the operators—and the equivalent support given to counties just outside London. I hope that the Minister will not make the problem worse through an inappropriate application of the Bill.
	The failure fully to reimburse local authorities for the cost of the scheme would have consequences that go beyond the nature of the services provided. Also affected would be the ability of local authorities to deliver any sort of proper concessionary fare scheme.
	It is a cause of great grief to many of the elderly in the northern part of my constituency—those who live in places such as Stoneleigh, Worcester Park and Ewell—that their neighbours just across the boundary in London benefit from the free bus passes that are available to them under local authority schemes. Those local authorities are able to deliver those free bus passes because of the extra financial support that they receive.
	Surrey county council does not receive the financial support that would enable it to provide free bus passes. It has tried extremely hard to deliver a concessionary scheme that goes some way at least towards relieving the burden of costs faced by our older travellers. The council has been able to help a little financially, but my elderly constituents are only human. They look up the road—sometimes only a few hundred yards—and wonder why they cannot have a bus-pass scheme such as exists in Sutton or Kingston. The reason is that the money for such a scheme is not available.
	The Bill will make it more difficult still for my county council—and I suspect for many other authorities around the country—to introduce the schemes for bus passes and concessionary fares that benefit pensioners in higher-cost areas.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend concluded that there is a particular irony about the problem, in that the further that one gets away from London and the other major metropolitan areas, the worse the bus service tends to be? If the amendment is rejected, the effect will be that local authorities are likely to cut back on discretionary spending on bus services. That will further reduce the number of services, especially in areas such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), and in my area of the Cotswolds?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. Many services depend absolutely on local authority support to keep going. Such services are nowhere near the principle routes. They deliver more a social service than a commercial one, and they benefit from the support of local authorities. If local authorities get less money, there will be fewer of those services. That has to be a matter of great concern for hon. Members considering the Bill.
	Quite rightly, the Government have an aspiration to see concessionary fare schemes grow. Many parts of the country have nothing like the level of such schemes that are available in London. Many of the authorities in those areas would like to do more. My authority's aspiration is, at the very least, to charge pensioners a 50p flat fare for buses.
	However, if the additional costs of concessionary schemes are placed, in whole or in part, on local authorities, it will be more difficult for those authorities to introduce improved schemes. Moreover, although no one could argue with the aims of the Bill, the irony is that it will make it more expensive for local authorities to introduce expanded schemes in the future. By definition, they will have to find budgets to cover people aged between 60 and 65, as well as those aged over 65. As a result, it is less likely that local authorities will be able to afford new schemes in the future.
	I hope that the Minister will give the matter careful thought, and that she will consider the consequences of failing to fund local authorities in full. I hope that she will give us this afternoon a commitment to providing full funding, and that she will think about those areas in the country that do not have the sort of schemes that would be desirable. The Minister must look at the potential extra costs that will arise, as a result of the Bill, if local authorities try to improve their schemes. Moreover, I hope that the Minister, when she looks at her Department's financial planning for the future, will encourage local authorities to go ahead with fare schemes and, where appropriate, give them the financial support that they need.
	In conclusion, I welcome the Bill very much, and I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on the amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it. If she does not, I hope that she will at least accept the principle behind it, and give our local authorities the support that they undoubtedly need to implement the Bill.

Sally Keeble: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) introduced the amendment. He clearly acknowledged that the form of words used is something of a device and that the intention behind the amendment is better expressed in new clause 1. I shall not talk about the new clause, but I will deal with some of the different ways to tackle the financial arrangements, as I think that that is the subject that most worries Opposition Members.
	The question of funding has been a recurring theme in debates on this Bill in this House, in the other place and in Committee. I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) by telling him that I do not agree with his interpretation of what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said. If I do not use the same words as my right hon. Friend, it is only because I cannot be as eloquent.
	I appreciate the concerns about funding, and about the need to get the formula right. I shall therefore go through some of the arguments explaining why the Government chose the approach contained in the Bill.
	The amendment would add another stage to the system of funds distribution. Given that the hon. Member for Cotswold admitted that it would also require an additional round of consultation, it would be inconceivable for us to get the scheme up and running even in time for the next financial year. I urge Opposition Members to think hard about that, especially as amendment No. 3 deals with commencement. In addition, the amendment could undermine the method of distribution of Government support for the expenditure of local authorities.
	Before I move on to some of the other issues, I shall deal with the concerns raised by hon. Members, and make some general comments. The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about the new burdens principle and the discussions that took place in Committee. In adopting the new burdens and revenue support grant approach, the Government are utilising the usual channels for local authority financial arrangements. As a result, the scheme will be introduced in a manner that, if not super fast, is speedy and orderly. The Government's approach also allows for proper discussion of the distributive mechanism through the local government channels. That is important because of the two big issues in local government funding—the size of the cake and how it is shared out. There must be discussions with the local government associations about both issues, particularly the latter.

Christopher Chope: What system could be fairer than one which reimburses local authorities, on an individual basis, for the costs that they have incurred as a result of the legislation?

Sally Keeble: I was going to come to that point later. That would mean a ring-fenced grant, which one of the amendments suggests, but it would lead to delay. In contrast, the Bill provides for an orderly and fair distribution of the total costs between local authorities.
	It is true that some time ago concerns were raised by local authorities about the fairness of the distribution. I understand that the discussions between officials and the local government associations have been successful and that the margins that were talked about, which were in multiples of a million, have been whittled down to a small amount.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch, along with other Conservative Members, argues that his local authorities are losing out. All Members think that their local authority is losing out. In fact, the way in which the mechanism works means that local authorities that already have more generous concessionary fare schemes in place, such as Merseyside, Reading and the West Midlands, are more likely to be under pressure than the local authorities that started from scratch or from a lower base in introducing concessionary fare schemes. I do not accept that the hon. Gentleman's authorities have necessarily lost out, nor those of his hon. Friends. In checking with officials, they do not seem to have raised that concern with my Department. Therefore, I do not think that this system, which is the normal one, discriminates against the hon. Gentleman's local authorities.

Christopher Chope: Does the Minister accept that the two local authorities in my constituency have incurred additional costs as a result of her legislation of £250,000 a year and have got back, between them, £20,000 a year? Which local authorities have been getting the extra £230,000 that should be going to Christchurch and East Dorset? Why is that money going to the West Midlands and Merseyside which are already over-resourced?

Sally Keeble: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. Local authorities which are the most likely to find that they have unmet costs as a result of this mechanism have, in the past, had more generous concessionary fare schemes in place. The total cost of the new burdens are put into a general kitty and then carved up. Councils which have in the past had more generous schemes will have higher new burdens under the Bill. Authorities such as the West Midlands and Reading, rather than getting more money out of the scheme, are most likely to be under pressure.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Sally Keeble: I should like to continue, because I will come on to the concerns of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I should also like to deal with the concerns of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) about bus transport in rural areas, particularly for pensioners. He said that pensioners moving out of London would lose the valuable benefit of the free bus pass which London local authorities have had in place for many years. They kept the scheme going even when they were under acute financial pressure under the last Conservative Government. The decision to keep the free bus pass was made by Conservative and Labour councils in the teeth of considerable opposition. It was a recognition of local needs, and that is how local government should work.
	We have recognised the problems of people in rural areas who need bus transport and have provided front-end support for them in the form of the rural bus challenge and a big increase in the subsidy for rural buses. We had the last round of the rural bus challenge last Friday. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's local authority, although it might not have been his constituency, benefited from that challenge.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose—

Sally Keeble: I should like to finish this point about rural buses. We recognise that people in rural areas do not just want to go short distances. That is why we are looking at a fuel duty rebate for coaches in return for some concessionary fares. That will be an important step and will meet particular needs.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has raised his concerns a number of times. I have heard the exposition at least twice. His particular concern is that because his constituency is just over the border of London, people feel more strongly about not getting the free bus pass. Local authorities need to look at close working across local government boundaries. That is an issue right across the country. Local authorities have the discretion to make extra provision, as the authorities in London did, for the fact that people in their area may want to travel longer distances or go into London.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned schoolchildren. There is support for children in particular circumstances, depending on how far away from school they live and how old they are.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister seems to be dismissing the arguments of Conservative Members as trivial. The Local Government Association briefing says:
	"As well as the aggregate financial consequences of the Bill, authorities individually will be affected to varying extents depending on the type of scheme or schemes currently offered locally . . . the imposition of this specific new burden with its widely varying local consequences requires an innovative look at whether there can be transitional measures to ease the particular problems which some authorities may face."
	As my hon. Friends are urging me to consider dividing the House on this matter, can the Minister assure us that if she does not accept the amendment, she will at least continue to investigate the problem to see whether there are any mechanisms for every local authority to be reimbursed for the actual costs that they incur?

Sally Keeble: I am not dismissing the concerns that are raised. I recognise that concessionary fares are extremely important to the public and that the issue of finance is of great concern to local authorities. I am simply pointing out that some of the issues raised by Conservative Members are about non-metropolitan, rural areas and that other support is being provided for people in those areas. The concessionary fare scheme is not the last word as regards what we are doing to support bus travel. We are considering the organisation of the financing. There has been careful discussion in the local government associations—the proper way to do it—and what started out as wide variations have narrowed to quite a small sum. I am sure that those discussions will continue. By the time that the scheme comes into operation in April 2003, I am sure that local councils will feel satisfied that they are being properly reimbursed.
	The local authorities mentioned by Opposition Members did not raise their concerns with the Department. If those authorities provide the information, I will ensure that officials take a careful look at it.

Chris Grayling: I am sorry but the Minister has already heard my explanation two or three times. I can assure her that she and her colleagues will hear it many more times in the House and other places. She has made various references to different impacts on different authorities, but is she saying that some authorities will end up paying part of the costs of the scheme out of their current budgets, rather than new budgets?

Sally Keeble: I am sorry if I have not been clear. On the way in which the funding mechanisms work, I have been saying that we have gone through the normal channels and procedures, if for no other reason than we do not want to delay the introduction of the scheme. We want it in place by 2003.
	We have recognised the new burdens principle, which is that if a new burden is placed on local authorities it has to be met. That applies to the total cost of the scheme, which we estimate to be about £50 million. That will be the new burden to be imposed on local authorities as a result of the scheme. The issue is how that amount will be divided up among the local authorities. It is to be done on a per capita basis. Local authorities would receive funding according to the size of their population. I should have thought that that deals with the concerns about the relative funding for London and Surrey. Clearly, the local authorities are discussing exactly how the mechanism should work to ensure that it is as fair to them as possible. The authorities have to discuss that among themselves.
	Referring back to what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport said, we would expect the pressures to be on the margins. The authorities that are most likely to experience those financial pressures are those that historically have had the most generous concessionary fare schemes. I do not want to go into all the detail again, as I shall sound like a gramophone record if I do.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been generous in giving way. She stated that the effects of the Bill will be felt only at the margins. If she genuinely believes that—the Opposition think that it will be a bit more than at the margins—she is implicitly admitting that the revenue cost is small, if it is a cost at all. Therefore, why will she not consider implementing the amendment?

Sally Keeble: Although I am not reading the words used by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, the form of words that I am using is pretty much same when I say that the pressures will be felt at the margins. The formula for cutting up the cake between the local authorities—there are more than 300 of them in England, which is why it is a substantial undertaking—is down to the discussions with those authorities. It appears that those discussions have gone well and that the areas of conflict are now very small.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly said the amendment is a peg. It refers to a different Bill and a completely different provision. The ring-fencing process that concerns him is not in the amendment. Furthermore, it would result in major delays, which would mean that we would be unlikely to get the scheme up and running by 2003. The devolved Administrations have already got such schemes up and running, so we would be lagging far behind. I shall now move on, as we have discussed that issue several times and have more or less exhausted the arguments.
	At present, most Government grant to local authorities is paid by way of general grant. It is for local authorities to spend the money in the way that they consider appropriate, based on their judgment of local needs and circumstances and their overall financial priorities.

Christopher Chope: The Minister said that the grant is allocated to local authorities so that they can decide how to spend it. Concessionary travel comes into a different category, however, as the Government have decided, for their own political benefit, to announce a statutory scheme and impose legislation on local authorities. The Government have also announced the principle of burdens. Will the Minister explain how it can be fair to impose an additional burden of £250,000 on two small local authorities in Dorset, and to reimburse them with only £20,000?

Sally Keeble: I have said that we have recognised the new burdens principle. The extra funding is on that basis. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for a ring-fenced grant. In general, local authorities rightly say that they want more discretion as to how they spend their money. As the funding is part of general funding, local authorities are free to top up their schemes and to use part of their general grant to do so. There is no contradiction.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Conservative party wants a special grant; it does not want the money to be part of the general grant. As I have said several times, if it were part of a special grant, further consultation would be required and the introduction of the scheme would be delayed until after 2003. We believe that local authorities should be responsible for their spending and taxation decisions and be accountable to their local communities for them.
	We all recognise that reimbursing local authorities at the current cost of concessionary fares is expensive, but we none the less believe that the system is in balance, not least because we have received few complaints from authorities about it. I give this undertaking to the hon. Members for Cotswold and for Christchurch: if the information about the local authorities mentioned is provided, we will certainly consider it carefully.
	In England alone, we reimburse local authorities to the tune of £490 million a year. This legislation will increase that amount by about £50 million. We are working with local authority associations to finalise the figures so that the local government settlement will cover in total the cost of the extension of the travel concession to men aged 60 to 65.
	As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport explained at some length in Committee—including in a lengthy discussion of the new burdens principle—the basis for distributing the concessionary fares funding is in line with other transfers to local government of this size. We really do not think that there is a case for the separation of that element of the revenue support grant, especially in comparison with other aspects of expenditure. We do not think that element should be ring fenced by a special grant mechanism.
	More generally, as I have said several times, we want to ensure that the system of distributing grant is as fair as possible. We are working to create a local government finance system that distributes grant fairly and effectively and which gives councils greater financial autonomy to help them better to meet the needs of their local communities. We shall be working with local government as a whole to build consensus as far as possible.
	We have discussed funding at great length. I completely understand the concern of Opposition Members to ensure that their constituents receive the benefit of concessionary fares and also that their local authorities are properly reimbursed or compensated. We believe that the system is fair and efficient and that it will facilitate the orderly and expeditious introduction of this very, very important concession. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Cotswold will withdraw his amendment so as not to delay the scheme; and that we can get the measure through and ensure that men aged between 60 and 65 receive the benefits of the Bill.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The one thing on which the House can agree is that the Bill is important and that we want it on the statute book as soon as possible.
	The Minister uses an interesting device to try to reject the amendment—threatening us that it could delay the implementation of the measure. She has certainly anticipated that she will not accept our amendment so that she can bring forward the implementation of the measure. That is a new parliamentary device and we may be breaking new ground. However, I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind as to the amendments that we have not yet debated.
	I remind the Minister of the genesis of the Bill. As long ago as 10 October 1997, Michael Matthews took his case to the European Court. The Court hearing was on 28 November 2000, and on 17 February 2001 the Deputy Prime Minister announced that primary legislation would be introduced to amend the law so as to equalise at 60 the age at which men and women qualified for travel concessions.
	The Government have had a huge amount of time to put the Bill on to the statute book, so there is no excuse for them not to accept our relatively straightforward and wholly fair amendment. Surely, if a council is out of pocket due to the obligations imposed on it by the Government, it should be reimbursed by the Government.

Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I make one more point?
	The Minister mentioned the system of fair burdens. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) referred to the remarks of the Minister for the Environment and I repeat the Minister's words. He said:
	"We are abandoning that practice and taking the realistic view that if extra duties are imposed they should be reasonably funded."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
	The Opposition take the view that if the Government impose any duties on local government, they should be fully funded. If the Government impose duties, the Government should fund them.
	I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—[Interruption.] He no longer wants to intervene so I must have dealt with the point that he wanted to make.

Don Foster: Very effectively.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I may be damned with faint praise later, so I shall keep going while I am ahead.

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend address the fallacy in the Minister's argument that the authorities under the greatest financial pressure were those with the most generous schemes? Surely, the authorities that did not have generous schemes were under financial pressure—that is why their schemes were not generous. They wanted the money that would flow from the Government under the new system to enable them to introduce more generous schemes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister's argument was fallacious in that respect.

Sally Keeble: We have just heard a different version of what I said. I said that those local authorities that had traditionally had the most generous concessionary fares schemes were those that would be the most likely to be under financial pressure as a result of the Government using this formula. Those were not the authorities represented by Conservative Members—they were places such as Merseyside and the west midlands.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Until I read the record, I shall not be entirely sure whether the Minister has repeated what she said before or whether she is saying something slightly different. The argument still sounds fallacious, so I shall need to examine the record carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is right: the smaller rural authorities are likely to be most disadvantaged by the provisions of the Bill.
	We have held a long debate on the subject and we need to move on. The Opposition remain dissatisfied that the Government are introducing extra burdens for local authorities—especially small authorities. Because of that and because the Minister has not wholly convinced us that the Bill would be fair, we shall seek to divide the House so that our local authorities can see that we are protecting their interests to the full.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 262.

Question accordingly negatived.

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
	'(4A) Subsections (1) to (4) above shall not affect the operation of any travel concession scheme more generous than that provided by section 145(1) (mandatory concessions outside Greater London) of the Transport Act 2000 and by section 242 (requirements as to scope of concessions which must be given if free travel scheme is not to have effect) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 as amended by section 151(12) (concessions inside Greater London) of the Transport Act 2000.'.
	The amendment follows on logically from the important discussion that we have just had about the cost of the Government's proposals. The Liberal Democrats welcome the broad thrust of the Bill and, like the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), we wish it good speed and a speedy implementation. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am conscious, however, that action on this issue should, and could, have been taken sooner. Indeed, during the passage of the Bill that became the Transport Act 2000, I moved amendments that would have had exactly the same effect that this Bill is intended to have. In other words, the matter could have been done and dusted more than two years ago, and it is a great pity that we are still here debating it. 3 pm
	I want to express my gratitude to the Minister because in speaking to the previous amendment she almost made my case for me, and in a moment I shall quote her remarks in support of this amendment. When the hon. Member for Cotswold spoke to the previous amendment, he referred also to a new clause that was related to it but had not been selected. For ease of understanding, I shall follow the hon. Gentleman's sensible precedent, because I tabled new clause 2 as well as amendment No. 4, and the new clause succinctly expresses the intention of the amendment. It states:
	"It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall inhibit the operation of any existing travel concession scheme, whether statutory or otherwise."
	I tabled amendment No. 4, which would have the same effect as those words, to be helpful to none other than Lord Falconer. In the debate in the other place, he said that
	"it is regrettable if local authorities have taken the decision to offer their elderly and disabled people less generous schemes as a result of a statutory minimum requirement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 743.]
	The noble Lord would, rightly, be concerned if, as a result of the introduction of the minimum requirement and the further change to it now being imposed by the Bill, local authorities reduced the quality of existing non-mandatory provision.
	If the money provided by the Government to recompense local authorities in the manner described by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and others is not sufficient, they may have little choice but to make up that deficit by removing money from more generous schemes already in existence. During our discussion in Committee, hon. Members gave examples of schemes that are already under threat and considerable concern was expressed on both sides of the Committee about the possible demise of more generous schemes. It was because of those concerns that Lord Falconer made his remarks in the other place.
	As I said, the Minister has made it abundantly clear that she, too, is concerned about that possibility. She also made it clear, however, that there is uncertainty even as to the level of funding that the Government will have to provide to meet their existing promise. The debate on the previous amendment dealt with the rights and wrongs of the method of dividing up the pot, but there is still a debate to be had about whether the pot itself is large enough.
	In the earlier debate, the Minister said that it was her understanding that debates between her officials and the Local Government Association about the funding that might be required were so successful that the difference between them had been whittled down from millions of pounds to a small amount. She later told us that the additional burdens imposed as a result of the Bill would be round about £50 million. That is worrying. We were told earlier that the figure might be £54 million and that discussions with the Department continue. I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate she will tell the House the precise amount that the Government believe is necessary collectively to compensate local authorities for the imposition of the new burdens.
	In response to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cotswold, who was ably supported by several of his hon. Friends, the Minister clearly said that the local authorities who already provide generous concessionary schemes are
	"more likely to be under pressure".
	When the hon. Member for Christchurch suggested that she had said something rather different, she asserted that such authorities are
	"most likely to be under pressure."
	My concern in speaking to this amendment relates to those authorities and others.

Sally Keeble: My reference to authorities being under pressure related to the division of the cake, not the size of it, and to the previous amendment.

Don Foster: The Minister made that absolutely clear earlier, and I entirely accept that we are now discussing the size of the cake rather than how it is divided up. As I said, I am concerned that the cake may not be big enough fully to recompense councils collectively, and that may lead to some councils dropping more generous schemes. I come now to the point that the mechanism for distributing the cake will, according to the Minister herself, have an impact on a number of local authorities who already have more generous schemes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In my opening remarks on the previous amendment, I alluded to concerns about the total cost of the Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the LGA briefing prepared for Members of Parliament. It states:
	"The LGA is still in discussion with the DTLR about the actual level of additional costs to local authorities for providing the statutory minimum scheme set out in TA2000"—
	the Transport Act 2000—
	"for which the Association feels the Department may have under-estimated",
	even with the increase in aggregate revenue support grant provision of £54 million in England, an increase over its initial assessment of £47 million. The Minister and the DTLR are having continually to raise their estimate of the Bill's costs and no doubt will continue to do so.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he reminds us that there are two stages to the process. First, the Transport Act sensibly introduced a statutory minimum requirement, which placed burdens on local authorities. As he said, discussions continue as to whether local authorities are being properly recompensed by the Government for those burdens. Secondly, we have the Bill, which could have been incorporated in the Act but was not. It will place an additional burden on local authorities, and discussions continue about the collective cost of that to local authorities who run such schemes.
	I hope that the Minister will at least make it clear to the House where we stand with the negotiations on the costs that specifically relate to the Bill, but if she can provide any additional information about continuing discussions on the costs of the original legislative requirement under the Transport Act 2000, I am sure that the House will be pleased to receive it. However, as I have said, the problem is not only that the cake may not be enough, but that the method of dividing the cake may put pressure on certain local authorities that already operate generous concessionary schemes above the statutory minimum. Lord Falconer has made it clear in another place that he does not want such schemes to be removed.
	The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we state clearly in the Bill that nothing will reduce the quality of existing services, whether mandatory or non-mandatory. The Minister referred to several places where that may be the case. She said that Merseyside, the west midlands and Reading were most likely to be put under pressure as a result of the Government's proposals. There will also be additional pressures in London. Reference has been made already to the generous freedom pass scheme that operates in London, and there is much discussion about the operation of that scheme. I have recently corresponded with organisations that are genuinely concerned that, in an attempt to make eligibility for the freedom pass scheme uniform throughout London, several local authorities are tightening up the criteria so that some people, especially disabled people, are losing out.
	The London scheme is more generous than the legislative statutory minimum requirement, so a larger number of men in the 60 to 65 age group will benefit from it and an additional cost will have to be met to pay for those people who have been added to the more generous scheme. Does the Minister genuinely believe that the additional costs in London, the west midlands, Merseyside, Reading and many other parts of the country have been taken into account in the sum that will be provided?
	The purpose of the amendment is clear: to ensure that nothing done as a result of the Bill will in any way reduce the ability of local authorities to provide those existing schemes that are more generous than the legislation requires them to provide. If the Government disagree to the amendment so that the current schemes in the areas to which I refer can be whittled away—that has sadly already happened in several areas—they will reap a poor reward for their actions. I hope therefore that the Minister will support the amendment.

Sally Keeble: I appreciate all the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I do not want to have a very long discussion about the financial arrangements, especially as we have discussed them exhaustively in Committee. I suspect that I would simply end up saying what I have said previously, and we would go round the houses again. The financial figures that I have cited are those that I have been given most recently, so they cover the current state of play. I give an undertaking to ensure that hon. Members are properly notified of any further developments.

Don Foster: The Minister gave from the Dispatch Box a figure of about £50 million, but the figure that she and her colleagues have cited most frequently is £54 million. For the sake of clarity, will she confirm that that is the current figure, agreed by her departmental officials and the LGA? Given that she said that there was a small discrepancy, can she tell us what it is?

Sally Keeble: I too have heard the £54 million figure. The figure that I have been given most recently by officials is £50 million. I have previously given an approximation of the remaining difference, which is down from the several millions that it was previously. I do not want to go back around that or to mislead anyone about the continuing discussions. It would probably be more helpful if we made absolutely sure that hon. Members received exactly the right figures, and I undertake to write to hon. Members about them when we know whether those discussions have produced any further results.
	In answer to the question about the different local authorities, I said that they were the ones most likely to be under pressure. The point of the negotiations and discussions that are taking place is to ensure that they are not under pressure and that we reach the right the final formula. At the end of the day, the Bill will greatly benefit many people. Overwhelmingly, that will be its impact, and I have no doubt that the concessions that will be extended to 64-year-old men will be very welcome indeed. Of course, we have to ensure that the financial details are right, but we would be unwise to lose sight of the fact that this will be an overwhelmingly popular and practical measure that will produce real improvements for a substantial number of people.
	I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses about ensuring that there is an equalising up, not an equalising down. I shall put things simply before going through my formal notes so that they are on the record. Under the Bill, local authorities will have to do for men what they are doing for women of the same age. If women get free bus passes, so must men. That is the Bill's effect; this is not a discretionary issue. If the local authority runs a half-fare scheme, men will pay half fares. Whatever scheme operates, it must be extended to men aged 60 to 64.
	Of course, local authorities can introduce new schemes if they decide to do so at some stage in the future. Indeed, that is the point of local government, as the hon. Gentleman well knows; the Liberal Democrat party is totally in favour of local discretion. All the evidence shows that when people are given concessionary public transport, the pressure is to increase the concessions, not to reduce them. All the discussions about concessionary bus passes—for example, those in the west midlands and Greater Manchester—clearly show the enormous value that is placed on those facilities.

Don Foster: There is no disagreement in the Chamber about the enormous benefits that the Bill will produce. May I ask the Minister to turn to the specifics of the issue? For example, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said that his local authority's aspiration was to provide a flat-rate 50p travel scheme for people over the age of 60. If his local authority already had in place such a scheme, the Bill's introduction will result in a significant additional cost to that authority for providing a flat-rate scheme for a much larger group of people—men between the ages of 60 and 65—than in a neighbouring authority that was only providing the statutory minimum.
	My question to the Minister is simple: will she ensure, by whatever means—let us not argue about the methodology—that that mythical local authority will not lose out and be forced to cut its more generous concessionary scheme?

Sally Keeble: I do not want to return to the finance debate, as we have had that discussion several times and I would end up saying the same thing as was said in Committee. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was talking about aspirations, although I was not sure whether he was talking about what is in place. I accept that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) might have liked the debate to be the other way round.
	This short Bill, apart from bringing enormous benefits to an important section of society, will make sure that men aged 60 to 64 receive the same benefits as women in that age group. We have undertaken to finance any new burdens that that imposes on local authorities—we have had that debate—but it will not be possible to provide men aged 60 to 64 with different benefits from those provided to women. If, at a future stage, local authorities wish to change their concessionary fares scheme, they may do so.
	I have dealt with the arguments about the political realities, rather than the financial realities, of taking such a decision. That has been clearly demonstrated by the concerns that have been raised, much more in the debate about the original concessionary fares schemes than in this debate. We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed in the west midlands and Greater Manchester, and of the reality of what happened subsequently. As I understand it, in all areas, the levelling was up, not down, once the mandatory scheme was introduced.

Chris Grayling: I appreciate that the hon. Lady feels pressed on this point, but the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has raised an important issue. Will any local authority be forced, as a result of the changes, to reduce the concessionary fares scheme that it provides for its local people, or to divert money away from other services to fulfil the terms of the Bill—yes or no?

Sally Keeble: That point came under the debate that we have just had. The Government have recognised the new burdens, we have sized and cut up the cake and made it as fair as possible.

Phil Woolas: And put cream on it.

Sally Keeble: Yes, and a cherry on top, too. That is the point that we have reached.
	The amendment is about making sure that schemes are not reduced as a result of the Bill. The Bill specifically says that, if a scheme is in place, it must be extended to men aged 60 to 64. If a free pass scheme is in place, those men must have free travel, as, of course, the pass must be free. If a 50 per cent. fare scheme is in place, that must be extended to men aged 60 to 64. That is what is being financed, and that will be the effect of the scheme. I have explained that repeatedly and, I hope, as clearly as possible. I shall now make progress.
	At the risk of going over the same ground, the Bill will extend all existing schemes to men from age 60. Therefore, as I said, if the local authority offers a statutory minimum of a half fare with a local free bus pass—they cannot be charged for the pass—that must be offered to men aged 60 to 64 once the Bill comes into effect, which should be in April next year. Similarly, in areas where schemes that are more generous than the statutory minimum are offered, those schemes should also be extended. The Bill will therefore extend rather than reduce the existing schemes.
	It is vital that we do not fetter the discretion of local authorities to operate the concessionary fare schemes that they consider best meet the needs of their areas. We do not expect local authorities to use the Bill as a reason to reduce the scope of their current schemes. We are confident that the funding that will be provided through the new burdens procedure will compensate local authorities for extending their schemes to men aged 60 to 64. We are keen to retain local democracy, and we do not want the Bill to reduce the discretion afforded to local authorities on the matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath would support that. It is down to local authorities to decide, in the light of local circumstances, what type of scheme they want to operate.

Don Foster: The Minister seeks to reassure us that everything that the Government intend to do will ensure that the Bill does not result in a reduction of the existing, more generous, schemes. Will she add to her reassurance by providing some of the information that must be available to her? Her noble Friend Lord Falconer said in another place:
	"We are presently undertaking a survey to measure the effects of the implementation of the statutory minimum requirement. The survey is one of a series undertaken whenever there are significant changes to the concessionary travel regime. The results of the survey, which should be available early next year, will identify whether there is a problem of concessions having been reduced or whether there are just a couple of isolated examples."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2001; Vol. 627, c. 743-44.]
	Will the Minister tell us the result of that investigation?

Sally Keeble: We do not have the results of that investigation yet. There has been discussion of the impact on some schemes, and I have mentioned them. The matter has also been discussed in Committee and probably on Second Reading, too. In most instances, the matter has been resolved by the original schemes being reinstated. That is largely because of the popularity of concessionary fares. As soon as we get the results of the survey, I am sure that they will be made available to hon. Members, as they will be very important.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. They have been raised in correspondence by a number of hon. Members, and there has been a lot of discussion about them. I assure him that nothing in the Bill will cause any existing scheme to be reduced in scope or otherwise curtailed. With those assurances, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster: The Minister provides warm words of encouragement, but unfortunately she cannot yet provide evidence from the survey that she acknowledges is being carried out as to whether similar assurances were given in respect of the introduction of the earlier statutory minimum requirement, and whether its introduction led to such reductions. I note with interest that some schemes, as she rightly said, were referred to in Committee—for example, the west midlands scheme, which, although it was going to be removed, has now been reinstated. She explained that it was reinstated because of the popularity of the scheme, and one can well imagine that local councillors in those areas were put under enormous pressure. However, she did not say that the schemes were reinstated as a result of Government assurances that additional money to meet the additional cost would be made available; they were reinstated merely because of the political pressure placed on councils in the area.

Sally Keeble: I believe that those schemes were resolved in such a way. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman.

Don Foster: So the Minister is agreeing that the resolution of the problem was not a result of Government intervention.
	The point that I have sought to make throughout is that it would be far better if the Government made it absolutely clear that they will introduce systems within the Bill's purview to ensure that the problems that we have discussed do not occur again. The Minister has said in warm words that it is not the Government's intention that such problems will occur, and that they are working very hard to ensure that they will not. I promise to look closely at the matter over the weeks and months to come, but with that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Commencement and transitional provision

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, leave out from "on" to end of line 7 and insert—
	'the day six months after Royal Assent has been signified to the Act.'.
	The amendment's basic purpose is to ensure that the Government enact the provisions as soon as reasonably practicable. Since the Minister used the interesting parliamentary device of saying that she could not accept amendment No. 2 because it would delay implementation of the Act, I had anticipated that she would similarly turn down this amendment. I hope that I have anticipated her wrongly, because I am certain that all the men out there aged between 60 and 64 will be looking carefully at this debate to see when they are likely to be able to qualify for concessionary fares. Indeed, no less a person than the Speaker's Secretary made representations to me earlier today, saying that he hoped that the Bill would be on the statue book as soon as possible.
	Having rejected amendment No. 2 because it will be simpler to operate the provisions under the standard spending assessment, the Minister is on much weaker ground in rejecting this amendment, as there is now less reason still why the Government cannot enact the provisions sooner rather than later.
	The Minister said that she intended that the Act would come into effect on 1 April 2003. I am reliably informed by the Clerks that, as the Bill has completed all its House of Lords stages, theoretically there is no reason why it should not come into operation in a matter of days.

Phil Woolas: Tomorrow.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Government Whip, who one would not normally anticipate saying anything, has just made an interesting comment. He has just said, "A month."

Phil Woolas: Tomorrow.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: All right, tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to encourage sedentary comments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will not provoke them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) made a helpful, illuminating comment, showing that if the Government moved with great speed, they could enact the Bill very quickly indeed. However, let us be generous and allow enough time for the parliamentary procedure to proceed at an orderly pace and assume that the Bill could be on the statute book by 1 March. Under our amendment, the provisions would then be brought into effect on 1 September—a full seven months earlier than the Government intend. The 1 million men who are likely to benefit from the provisions would warmly and heartily welcome that. I therefore urge the Minister to consider the amendment seriously.

Chris Grayling: Has my hon. Friend considered the perhaps mischievous possibility—I am sure that it is not really a possibility—that those men will have to wait an extra year because it is less convenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend the money in the next financial year?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that there are expenditure implications, and that might be one of them. I hope that it is not, because Mr. Matthews first took his case to the European Court as long ago as 10 October 1997, so the Government have had four years' warning that they would be likely to lose such a case. To delay implementation until 1 April 2003 therefore seems unnecessary, as they should have been able to conduct all the necessary consultation to bring the provisions into effect sooner rather than later.
	No lesser an organisation than Help the Aged said in its briefing:
	"If local councils were reimbursed through the forthcoming Revenue Support Grant"—
	which the Minister has determined to do—
	"then the system could be introduced in the spring of 2002."
	I do not know how long ago that briefing was written, but there is no practical reason, unless the Minister tells us otherwise, why the Bill should not be brought into effect on 1 September.
	All those watching this debate will need to hear the Minister make a cast iron argument why that should not be so, particularly because the case has already been lost in the European Court of Human Rights. If such cases are to mean anything, the Government should move expeditiously to implement that judgment, which they rightly upheld. We therefore very much look forward to what the Minister has to say on when the provisions can come into operation.

Sally Keeble: Our commitment to equalising the age of entitlement is clear. We introduced the Bill very early in this Session. It made speedy progress through the other place and, hopefully, the House will today give the Bill its blessing and it can go forward for Royal Assent.
	If amendment No. 2, which would have changed the basis for the financial calculation, had been agreed to, there would have been a substantial delay in implementation. We expect to have the measure fully implemented by April 2003, and that remains our firm intention.
	I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern; implementation a full year off sounds a long way away. However, it is debatable whether the amendment would help local authorities, as they will have set their budgets and be part way through the financial year. As I said, the arrangements were designed for the efficient and orderly introduction of the scheme, as well as to ensure a proper financial basis. There is also the important point about ensuring that equalisation does not lead to any reductions in the number of such schemes.
	There are very good reasons for putting new and changed concessionary travel arrangements into operation at the beginning of a local authority financial year, rather than part way through it. Legislation governing schemes in London requires the boroughs and Transport for London to agree their schemes by 31 December for implementation at the start of the following financial year. So, implementation in London would in any case have to wait until April 2003.
	Furthermore, implementing the Act in April 2003 will harmonise other legislation to bring about age equalisation for concessionary fares across England and in Wales on the same day. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has been somewhat parsimonious. It would be perfectly possible to introduce the scheme half way through a financial year and to adjust the revenue support grant next year to take that into account. I accept that, from the point of view of the orderly running of government, it is more tidy to introduce it on 1 April 2003, but we are talking about elderly people who may be on low incomes, and every little help makes their life just that much easier. I should have thought that the Government would be only too willing to get the Bill enacted and implemented as soon as possible. From the tone of the Minister's reply, I assume that she will reject the amendment. However, I hope that she will have an open mind on introducing the scheme by the end of the year, if not earlier, outside London—in the rest of England, which is where the bulk of people live.

Don Foster: The Minister made some sensible points, which the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, on the value of a 1 April date. Does he agree that she should at least stop saying that it is the Government's hope and intention to bring the Bill into effect on 1 April 2003, and assure us that that will be the latest date for implementation?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before I decide whether to press the amendment to a vote, I am happy to give way to the Minister so that she can give a cast-iron guarantee that the Bill will be implemented on 1 April 2003, because that would help the 1 million men to whom the debate is relevant.

Sally Keeble: Discussions have to take place with local authority associations and Transport for London. Subject to those and the agreement of the House—for all I know, the hon. Gentleman might decide to vote against the Bill—the provisions will come into effect in April 2003.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To be reasonable, that is the strongest assurance that we could hope for from the Minister. We will, however, watch her every move closely and hold her to account if that does not happen. On the basis of her genuine assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We are all aware of the purpose of this small but important Bill. It will entitle men to take advantage of all concessionary travel schemes from the age of 60 instead of 65. Equalising the age of entitlement for concessionary fares further demonstrates our commitment to tackling social exclusion and to ensuring that older people in society enjoy a full and active life. We want bus travel in particular to remain within the means of those on limited incomes and those with mobility difficulties. Bus travel is the most used form of public transport, especially by older people, and is of the most value to people as they move about their communities and go about their day-to-day lives.
	The House will recall that last year we brought into effect the provisions of the Transport Act 2000, which for the first time require local authorities to offer a minimum of 50 per cent. reductions for pensioners and disabled people on local bus services. The necessary bus travel pass must also be issued free of charge. Those changes are already benefiting 7 million people across England and Wales. In addition, many local authorities have more generous schemes that allow concessionary travel on other modes of transport. Some also provide free travel. The Bill will enable an extra 1 million men aged between 60 and 65 to enjoy the concessionary travel that is offered in their area.
	The debate has been constructive at all stages of the Bill's proceedings. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have taken part. I know that many Members have much to say on concessionary travel. I am pleased that there is a general appreciation of and, despite the minor reservations, support for what the Bill attempts to achieve. It will bring real benefits to many people.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We had a good debate on Second Reading and examined many issues in Committee on a fairly consensual basis. The Government did not accede to many amendments, but the broad consensus is that the Bill is welcome. It will benefit 1,177,700 men aged between 60 and 64 in England. They will be grateful to Mr. Matthews for taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights and to the Government for implementing the judgment. It is worth reiterating that the problem could have been put right had the appropriate amendment to the Transport Bill been accepted.
	There is still some dissatisfaction, however. The level of concessionary fares, which are in place throughout the country, varies according to where one lives. We support the principle that the Minister outlined: local authorities should be responsible for their spending and taxing decisions, and we would expect some variance. However, the variance is considerable, and I ask the Minister to urge all local authorities to aim to match the best schemes.
	As with all schemes, it would be interesting to discover why thousands of pensioners do not take advantage of the benefits that are on offer. The Minister should not let the Bill be the end of the matter—indeed, perhaps it should signal the beginning of a new era of providing a better service for our pensioners. I have a particular interest in the Bill because my constituency has the third highest number of over-85-year-olds in the country. There must be something about the Cotswold air that makes them live longer. I am delighted about that and hope that the average age continues to increase. Mercifully, advances in medical science are enabling the population to live longer. I am all for it because it means that I shall live longer too, much to the chagrin of Labour Members—but then they, too, will live longer, so we will also have to put up with them for longer.
	If we are a civilised society, we should do all that we can to help people at the end of their working life, and the Bill goes a long way towards achieving that. It is interesting that a significant number of men in the 60 to 65 category are still working and may benefit from the scheme, as I said in Committee. I suspect that there might be an uneven take-up among authorities, especially metropolitan authorities in London and those on its edges, because people in that age group who commute are likely to want to benefit from the scheme. I know that the concessions do not apply in normal working hours, but people who are at the end of their working life, especially those in more senior jobs, can work more flexible hours. They may well be able to amend their hours to take advantage of the scheme. That is a good thing.
	We will watch the Government carefully on costs. I do not want to go into them in too much detail, but they are important and we need to ensure that the Government make adequate provision for the full costs of the scheme. The Minister for the Environment said that local authorities will be reimbursed for reasonable costs. A good general principle is that when Government impose additional burdens on local authorities, those authorities should be reimbursed for the full costs of those obligations.
	The Government have recently imposed a raft of obligations on local authorities, and authorities are losing out because they are not being reimbursed. Examples are the best value initiative, changes in arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste, the fuel tax and extra pension costs, but the list is pretty long. Because the Government have not funded council tax properly this year, most rural shire counties will have to raise council tax by an average of 7.5 per cent., three times the inflation rate. That is one of the biggest stealth taxes imposed by the Government. I hope that, once the Bill has been enacted, all local authorities will consider carefully how it can be applied to their citizens' best advantage.
	It is regrettable that the scheme does not apply to local authority boundaries. That is unfair on those living near such boundaries. In Committee, I pointed out that someone travelling from Moreton-in-Marsh, in the north of my constituency, to a hospital in Evesham would have to cross at least one—possibly two—local authority boundaries. The scheme would not help that person if they wished to travel by bus, which would be perfectly feasible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid–Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) nods. His constituents living in and around Evesham might want to make the journey in reverse, and travel to the hospital in Moreton-in-Marsh. I would urge them to do so, because that would benefit the hospital.
	We have engaged in a long debate on a relatively simple Bill. I think all Members now wish it godspeed, and hope that the Minister will consult local government associations and major metropolitan counties so that authorities can benefit their citizens as soon as possible.

Don Foster: I have already made clear that Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We have engaged in helpful discussions of what is, as the Minister says, a relatively small Bill—discussions that have ranged widely, and have provided an opportunity for a number of further points to be discussed with Ministers.
	In Committee, for instance, there was a fair amount of discussion of the need for better facilities for disabled people on public transport. Members on both sides mentioned that. We have been able to discuss the need to extend concessionary fare schemes, not least for young people. More than 50 per cent. of those who have not taken advantage of further and higher education cite lack of public transport as one of the main barriers.
	Today we have had an opportunity to ask the Minister for an assurance that existing schemes that are more generous than the mandatory minimum schemes will not be jeopardised. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), we have also had an opportunity to discuss other possible extensions to concessionary fare arrangements. The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of boundaries, to which Age Concern referred cogently in a briefing that was used in Committee:
	"The government's present limitation seems to expect that elderly and disabled people should keep all of their family and friends, all their health care providers, all their shopping, entertainment and recreations, all their places of worship—indeed all their possible reasons for travel—in the same local authority area as themselves. The government may believe in strong local neighbourhoods, but this seems to be carrying the principle a little too far."
	Members of all parties supported that view then, and I suspect that they still do.
	The Committee then moved to the issue of concessionary fare schemes for coaches. When I asked the Minister about that, she replied
	"I cannot at present give a date for implementation, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman and others who are as interested know the implementation date as soon as possible."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 November 2001; c. 56.]
	I should be grateful if the Minister would remind us of the implementation date, and also give absolute assurances that the funding regime has been established and accepted by all parties.
	As is often the case, we have been ably supported during our deliberations by a number of organisations with particular interests in the issues. It is only right for us to pay tribute to the good work of many of them, such as Age Concern, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Local Government Association, the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People and Greater London Action on Disability. The greatest credit, however, must surely go to Parity, which, by taking the original Matthews case to the European Court, put pressure on the Government to introduce this much-needed and long overdue legislation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Let me associate the official Opposition with the thanks the hon. Gentleman has conveyed to all those organisations. Without their help, the debate would have been much the poorer.

Don Foster: I am more than happy to do so.
	The Bill is important. We hope that it will be enacted on the earliest possible date, and if that is 1 April 2003, so be it. Sadly, however, as it leaves this place for the last time a number of questions remain unanswered.
	We are still not sure that the Bill will have no impact on existing schemes. We are still not certain that the Government will find a fair mechanism for the distribution of the pot of money that they make available to compensate councils, and we are still not certain that, however it is distributed, it will cover the full cost. That said, however, I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Cotswold and wish the Bill godspeed.

Bill Wiggin: Local authorities' power to offer concessionary fares was introduced as early as 1955 under a Conservative Government. The latest Transport Act seeks to ensure that pensioners and disabled people are guaranteed half-price fares or better on local buses. Bus travel is vital for my constituents. Access for disabled travellers at Leominster station is already negligible, and the estimated cost of putting that right is well over £400,000.
	Under current legislation, eligibility for travel concessions is linked to the state-pension age, currently 60 for women and 65 for men. I personally welcome the equalisation of the qualifying ages at 60 and accept the wisdom of increasing the qualifying age to 65 by 2020, but I expect that in 2032, when I am eligible, it will have become even higher. Local authorities are obliged to reimburse bus operators for their forgone revenue; in theory, local authorities are reimbursed from central Government through the revenue support scheme. In my area, Malvern Hills district council was forced to introduce concessionary fares by the Government, but did not receive compensation through the revenue support scheme. Indeed, the only money which it received was a tiny sum to help pay for consultation, which forced it to increase council tax. I am worried that that is another gap in the funding chain, forcing councils with higher proportions of elderly people to charge more council tax and further penalise people on fixed incomes, especially pensioners. They may win on the buses, but they end up paying more council tax, as I said earlier. That is not exactly what the Government set out to achieve initially.
	The Government's failure to follow their funding through gives rise to serious concern. The travel concessions scheme will cost £54 million, which has been factored into the local government finance settlement. However, distributing funds via the standard spending assessment means that smaller district councils that receive no revenue support grant will not be properly compensated. That is another flaw in the scheme which needs to be corrected. I am not making a spending commitment for the Government, as they have already pledged to fund the scheme; what is needed is a fair and effective distribution of money.
	Councils already suffer enough from red tape and stealth taxation without another burden being imposed on those of us who pay council tax. We want guarantees that those holes will be plugged so that we can support the alteration to the concessionary travel age. We want a reduction in ring-fenced funding, which has risen from 4 per cent. to 10 per cent.
	The fact that buses cross local authority boundaries gives rise to another problem. It would be fair for travel concessions to be valid across boundaries, which may result in a higher take-up of the scheme. That would be a tremendous asset, as well as a positive and sensible step. It does not make sense for the Government to go to all that trouble to introduce a less popular scheme. Indeed, the target in one of their 10-year plans suggested an increase in bus usage of up to 20 per cent, so it would be wise to budget for a rising uptake. An amendment tabled when the Transport Act 2000 was in Committee gave the Government the chance to equalise the age for concessionary fares. However, despite the fact that ageism and sex discrimination are prohibited and reviled, the Labour Government chose to vote against it. Today, let us put right that wrong.

Sally Keeble: I shall detain the House only a short time in replying to the points made in our debate.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) urged us to ensure that all local authorities raise their schemes to the level of the best. The Government have repeatedly advised and exhorted local authorities to do just that. However, I pay tribute to all those local authorities, most of them Labour-controlled, but also some Conservative ones, which pioneered concessionary fares for pensioners and people with disabilities, and kept that going through all the years of cuts under the Conservative Government. It is an acknowledgement of their work over the years that the Labour Government are now able to extend the concessionary fares scheme nationally and to back it fully, I remind the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), with Government funds.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold talked about providing better services for pensioners. Again, I remind him that the Government introduced the winter fuel allowance, as well as the concessionary fares scheme, which we are now extending. We abolished eye test payments for pensioners. The Bill is not the last word on what we are doing for pensioners; we are discussing the extension of fuel duty rebate to coaches, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). That plan will be introduced. Another of our initiatives is the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. We plan to extend fuel duty rebate to community transport, which will benefit many older people. Extra money is going to the rural bus challenge and into rural transport, which will be of overwhelming benefit to pensioners. A number of schemes introduced under the rural bus challenge, for example, will make sure that older people can get to hospital.
	The hon. Member for Bath talked about concessions to students, which are being progressed through the Department for Education and Skills, and trialled in local authority areas in the north-east with the aim of a national extension. There is genuine progress on that issue. Interest in the Bill is in direct proportion to its benefits. I believe that I am the only Member in the Chamber at present who will not benefit from it at all. The hon. Members for Bath and for Leominster expressed uncertainties, queries and qualms about it, but I urge the House to give it a ringing endorsement. Whatever the difficulties or pressures involved in its implementation, it gives us the certainty that all over-60s, men and women alike, will have a national system of concessionary fares for the first time ever. That will result in a genuine difference in their quality of life, as they will be able to travel and lead the kind of life that we want older people to lead. For the first time, there is the certainty of a concessionary fare backed by Government funds; people will recognise that a Labour Government achieved that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

Agriculture

Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 3966), dated 10th December 2001, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be annulled.
	This debate provides an opportunity for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), to address a number of concerns about the new regulations raised by people who will most feel their impact. It also enables us to explore the way in which the regulations will work in practice and the Government's true intentions. There are questions about the extent to which the Government have added unnecessarily to the intentions of the original 1985 European Union directive.
	When the Minister replies to the debate, will he outline the scale of the problem that the regulations are designed to address? How much evidence is there, for example, that valuable heathland, marshland and environmentally important farmland is being ploughed up or changed in a way that the regulations seek to prevent? I am aware that because some unscrupulous people have realised that regulations are in the pipeline, there has been an increase in the ploughing-up of valuable sites. The Government have used existing powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to prevent that.
	I speak with feeling about that because a few years ago, as the Minister may recall, I introduced a private Member's Bill to protect hedgerows. As a result, I suspect that I am inadvertently the person most responsible for the destruction of hedgerows in the countryside. However, the point is that powers are in existence and can be applied. I should be grateful if the Minister addressed the scope of the problem; how, precisely, will the new regulations address the problem?
	The Minister may be slightly embarrassed—indeed, there may be embarrassment on both sides of the House—because the directive behind the regulations dates back to 1985. It has taken 17 years and the threat of infraction proceedings for the Government finally to get round to introducing national regulations. The directive already applies to wide areas of industry, but agriculture is the one that got away. The problem is that, in the end, nothing gets away from EU directives, however long ago they were signed and however inappropriate or anachronistic they may turn out to be when they eventually become enforced under the threat of infraction procedures, as is happening in this case.
	In the 17 years since the directive was introduced, life has moved on. As the Curry report, which was published earlier this week, has reminded us, there is now greater recognition of the interlinked relationship between farming, the environment and the whole of rural ecology and the rural economy. Good environmental practice is now much more widely recognised to be good business practice as well. That understanding is not confined to the rural economy; it applies to industry and to the economy as a whole. I think that that it is extremely welcome.
	While there will always be a need to take precautions against wide boys and unscrupulous operators, it should no longer be commonplace for Government to set out to catch the entire flock when seeking the black sheep. The Curry report warns of the need to watch the cumulative effect of regulations, especially on small businesses. It recommends that the Government should publish an annual aggregate compliance cost figure for new regulations. It also urges a more streamlined and simple approach to providing information about regulations. We support those proposals and I hope that the Minister will welcome them.
	What is really required, however, is a change in the culture of regulation. There is a need for the Government to change their mindset. They should challenge the assumption that they should always do more and ask instead whether they could do less and do it better. A mature relationship between Government and the governed and between the Department and farmers will be based not on rules, regulations and threats of punishment, but on trust. In agriculture more than almost anywhere else, the old command and control mentality still prevails and trust seems to have broken down utterly. Restoring and building trust between Government and the rural community is one of the greatest challenges that we face. Be that as it may, we accept that the Government have no choice but to introduce these measures in some form, even though they are based on the false assumption that they know best and that all farmers are inclined to be rapers and pillagers of the landscape if they are given half a chance.
	The issue today is not the fact that the regulations are being imposed, but the way in which they are being introduced. There are a number of concerns. First, on timing, it is unfortunate to say the least that the Government are introducing new regulations on the farming industry after what has been in many ways its worst year in living memory. Foot and mouth disease has left lasting scars in the rural community. New outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis are causing serious problems. Classical swine fever, rhizomania and poor harvests have added to the problems faced by this beleaguered industry. Together with the weakness of the euro and the strangulation of red tape, those problems lie behind the fact that farm incomes are still 72 per cent. below their 1995 level. This must be one of the worst times to introduce new rules and extra costs for the farming industry, but that is exactly what the regulations entail.
	I know that the Government carried out two consultations on the regulations during 2001. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for providing on 17 January some information in response to my parliamentary question about the number of responses that the Department received. The Minister might be tempted to take comfort from the fact that not many responses were submitted. The Department received 42 replies to the first consultation and 32 to the second. That is not many, given that the regulations affect every single registered agricultural holding in England. In her reply, the Secretary of State said:
	"Respondents included statutory agencies (English Nature, English Heritage, Environment Agency and Countryside Agency) and bodies representing environmental and historical interests and the farming industry."—[Official Report, ; Vol. 378, c. 482W.]
	It is interesting that the farming industry comes last on that list. I wonder how many farmers replied to the consultation and how much notice the Government took of what they said. I can only note that the National Farmers Union has recorded that it is
	"dismayed that many of our key concerns have not been satisfactorily resolved."
	I do not know what efforts the Department made to consult individual farmers about the regulations. When I asked one farmer whether he had responded to either of the consultations, he said that he got so many questions from DEFRA these days and had so much else to worry about that he had not even noticed them. I fear that that is typical. The Minister should not assume that silence from farmers signifies consent. It is more likely these days to signify utter demoralisation and, in many cases, despair.
	As a result, the regulations have taken many people by surprise. The latest edition of Farmers' Weekly, that excellent publication—I have no doubt that the Minister will agree that it is essential reading—reports:
	"Farmers across the country were this week sent a leaflet which explains how the scheme, which comes into force in one week, aims to protect uncultivated and semi-natural land.
	Andrew Clark, NFU head of environment, said while it was reassuring farmers finally had some details, they had been given fewer than 10 days to get to grips with them.
	'It doesn't give people enough time to figure out what it is', he said."
	Given the very short notice of the details of the regulations, which are due to take effect tomorrow, will the Minister confirm that he will exercise some lenience in their enforcement? After all, it is not the fault of farmers that they have been given only 10 days to assimilate the new regulations and their implications for their land holdings.
	There is also the question of the regulations' cost. In replying to my question on the matter, again on 17 January, the Secretary of State admitted that the Government did not know how much the regulations would cost either the Department or the landowners. The Minister shakes his head, but the Secretary of State said that the costs to the Department of administering the scheme are put at between £100,000 and £200,000. A 100 per cent. margin of error seems pretty generous. Compared with the average farm income of £7,800 a year, the sum is considerable. As the Department cannot cope at the moment even with handling routine support payments, the Minister might wish to consider whether the money could be spent rather more productively. The costs to landowners are put at between £20,000 and £28,000 per 100 projects. Of course, that is money that they can ill afford, but it may also represent a fraction of the real cost.
	The NFU has expressed concerns about the regulations' impact on the capital value of farmland. It has recorded that it is "extremely concerned" that the new regime will undermine land values by reducing the flexibility of the uses to which land can be put. It has calculated that the capital devaluation for potential arable land could be as much as £500 to £1,000 a hectare, which is about £200 to £400 an acre. Given that the capital value of agricultural land has effectively underpinned the banking sector's confidence in farming during this very difficult period, that is potentially a serious issue. Has the Minister undertaken an analysis of the regulations' possible impact on the underlying value of farmland?
	Uncertainty surrounds the issue of whether set-aside land will be caught by the regulations. The pamphlet issued by the Department merely advises people to call a helpline if they have concerns about such land. I know of a farmer who telephoned the helpline earlier today. He rang 0800 028 2140 and a pleasant voice answered, saying "EIA"—[Laughter.] Not "Ee ay addy oh". The farmer said that he had a parcel of land that had been set aside since 1992 and asked whether it would be affected by the new regulations. The person at the other end answered that they did not know and that he needed to speak to the countryside stewardship scheme. They very kindly provided a phone number. He dialled the number and got through to the scheme, but he was transferred and then cut off. He dialled the number again and finally got through to somebody who said that they did not know the answer to his question and that he needed to speak to someone at the environmental impact assessment unit. At that point, he thanked them and they said that they would call back. The service that is being offered to farmers who are genuinely concerned about how the regulations will affect their livelihoods and what they can do with their land is not adequate.
	The guidance notes provided by the Department are equally unclear. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that landowners get proper, timely and accurate advice when they inquire about set aside? Will set-aside land be excluded from the new regime? I would welcome the Minister's comments.

Bill Wiggin: This is an extremely important point. In my constituency, there are a huge number of apple growers. The booklet on the regulations mentions that orchards come under the EIA. It is essential that farmers in my constituency find out when the Minister replies what the understanding is for orchards. Currently the crops are grubbed up about every 25 years. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could press the Minister for an answer on that point.

Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point, which has been raised by outside concerns. It would be helpful if the Minister expressly addressed the issue of orchards, which do need to be grubbed up. The regulations should not impair normal farming practice. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not his intention and that it will not happen under the regulations as drafted.
	There is concern about the way in which the regulations may affect existing agri-environmental agreements such as the countryside stewardship scheme. The Country Landowners Association has highlighted the fact that land managers entered voluntary agreements on the basis that their options would remain open at the end of agreement period. By potentially restricting the options open to land managers, the regulations change the basis on which the original agreements were made.
	That problem could be mitigated if the Department stated that landowners will be offered the opportunity to renew their agreements on equivalent terms once they expire. Again, I would welcome the Minister's remarks on that issue. There is a danger that unless it is addressed, the regulations will act as a disincentive to farmers to enter into new agreements to protect the environment or, indeed, to engage in sensible diversification. I am sure that he would agree that that would be extremely regrettable.
	I have received a letter from Mr. Michael Payne, a farmer and environmental consultant, who points out that the regulations could have a particular impact in the areas worst affected by foot and mouth disease. He says:
	"Permanent grassland (down for more than 10 years) is one of the land types most likely to be affected"
	by the regulations.
	"This is particularly prevalent in the uplands, and in the wake of foot and mouth, the need for farming businesses to have the freedom to restructure without additional bureaucracy and cost may be crucial."
	I hope that the Minister will provide some reassurance on that point. Clearly, it would be wrong for regulations, so soon after the ending of the foot and mouth outbreak and the calamity that that spelt for the countryside, to impact particularly harshly on the people who suffered most.
	Mr. Payne raises the general point about the gold-plating of EU directives. That goes to the heart of many of the concerns that have been raised about the Government's proposals. On 30 March 2000, the Government published their action plan for farming. In it, they said:
	"The Government's policy on implementing EU obligations in relation to farming will be to avoid all 'gold plating' of the legislation, its implementation and enforcement; to regulate in the least bureaucratic and burdensome way and to avoid implementing legislation ahead of specified EU deadlines."
	They certainly have not implemented the regulations ahead of the EU deadline but what about the gold-plating? Will the Minister confirm that the Government have chosen to ignore the de minimis threshold allowed by the directive? Is not it the case that article 4 of the directive allows member states to set a cut-off point below which farming projects will be excluded?
	Paragraph 20 of the guidelines that were issued recently says:
	"We will not work to any specific threshold criteria. We are obviously more likely to consider large projects as significant than minor ones",
	but is there not a need to ask whether minor ones need to be considered at all? Will not the regulations add substantially to the administrative costs for the Department, as well as adding to the tangle of red tape that is already tying farmers in knots? Does not the provision amount to gold-plating?
	I have secured a copy of the original directive. Article 1 states clearly:
	"This directive shall apply to the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment."
	Setting aside the fact that many of the schemes caught by the regulations are unlikely to be considered "significant" to any normal observer, it is clear that the directive is aimed at major, large-scale projects such as construction projects.

Andrew Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that very small areas of land can have a significant impact on the landscape?

Peter Ainsworth: We are dealing with semantics but I do not think that it was the intention of the directive—if the hon. Gentleman chooses to reason, I think that he will form the same conclusion—to catch some minor change in the method of cropping in the corner of someone's field.

Malcolm Bruce: An important point has been raised. Farmers do not want to be over-regulated, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, but organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds say that even a 3 ft margin on a field can have significant implications for the wildlife. The cumulative effect of a lot of very small things has a significant environmental impact. Presumably that is part of what the directive had in mind.

Peter Ainsworth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the cumulative effects but I hope that he shares the concern about the cumulative effects of regulation on farmers' ability to go about their business at all. Piling regulations on the farming sector makes it less viable, less profitable and in the long run less able to look after the environment that we all care about so much.
	It seems that the directive is primarily aimed at things such as gravel pits, motorways and large-scale factory developments. Article 1.2 of the directive makes that clear:
	"'project' means
	the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes,
	other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources".
	Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), it must be doubtful whether the original intention of the directive was to embrace minor alterations to the corner of a field, or the recropping of a field with a higher percentage of rye grass.
	The Government's efforts to make the pill slightly less bitter than it would otherwise be give a faintly laughable tone to the leaflet that they have circulated, and indeed to the guidelines. However they are dressed up, it is impossible to escape the fact that these are new regulations. They impose new burdens on farmers. They threaten fines of up to £5,000 for non-compliance.
	It is true that the regulations set up an appeals process but appeals will be made to the Secretary of State, to officials in the Department or to people appointed by the Department, which is the enforcing agency. There is no right of appeal to an independent body. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts on why that is.
	There is no getting away from the fact that this is an increase in regulation. One would be hard pushed, however, to work all this out from reading the notes, pamphlets and leaflets published by the Department. I have a copy of a page from the leaflet. It says:
	"What is EIA?
	EIA is a way of helping farmers, land managers and others to consider the environmental effects of changing the way they use their land."
	The idea that these regulations are primarily to help farmers is pure fiction. The Government might be wearing a double set of kid gloves, but the iron fist keeps poking through at the knuckles. There is no reference in the information supplied to farmers by the Government of the penalties applicable for non-compliance and there is no such reference in the leaflet.
	A casual glance at the information would lead one to think that the regulations were, in some way, the answer to farmers prayers; something that they have been asking for rather than something that has caused them considerable concern.
	The guidelines state that the regulations
	"contribute significantly to a clearer understanding of good agricultural practice."
	So says the Department.
	Has the Minister thought to consider the implication of that statement? The implication is that land managers do not have a clear understanding of good agricultural practice. Many of us wonder why the Government believe that they understand good agricultural practice better than farmers do. The Minister should justify that belief in his remarks. It is time to challenge the assumption that has characterised the relationship between agriculture and Government for too long. It is the patronising assumption that politicians and civil servants know better than farmers what is good for them.
	There is no other industry in the world in which the machinery of government is so intimately involved in people's daily lives and decisions. Of course there should be penalties for those who knowingly and deliberately set out to wreck important wildlife sites or landscape features. Of course there is a need to recognise in law the public value of a sustainable and diverse environment. Of course there is a need for regulation, particularly where human health is at stake. However, on 3 January, Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place said that
	"the benefits from maintaining environmentally valuable areas could provide a significant source of income to farmers as land managers as well as food producers."
	If the Government believe that, why do they not let farmers get on with their job without the introduction of new heavy-handed, negative regulations that go beyond the original intentions of the directive?
	I regret that these regulations will do nothing to foster the trust that will be central to economic recovery and vitality in the countryside and I doubt whether, in the real world, they will afford much protection to important natural sites, the majority of which are already protected under different legislation.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to my questions and to those that other hon. Members will wish to put to him.

Malcolm Bruce: I endorse many of the reservations raised by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). There are legitimate concerns. I also take the view, however, that the directive requires action by the United Kingdom Government and the question should be about how to achieve the best balance between farmers being able to do their job, as the hon. Member for East Surrey pointed out, and the need adequately to protect the environment.
	The nature of farming is that it consists of small and medium-sized businesses. It is difficult for an individual farmer to see the cumulative effect of his actions, and those of many others, on the environment. The genuine debate about the way that farming is changing, in which the public are engaged, involves the extent to which it has, in some areas, had a detrimental effect on the landscape. That is not necessarily because the farmers were bad managers, but because practices that were accepted in the past have subsequently been found to be detrimental. For example, nitrate use has severe implications in some parts of the country. I know of farmers' concerns. I have a 55 hectare nitrate vulnerable zone in my constituency. I understand farmers who fear the regulations, but I equally care about the environment that the nitrates are destroying. We must do something about it.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman will know that the number of nitrate vulnerable zones is about to be increased across vast amounts of arable land. Does he accept that farmers have been driven by whatever is the thinking at the time? Is not this a question of re-educating people, particularly the next generation of farmers in agricultural colleges, away from the practice of maximum production, which has grown up throughout our lifetime? That has been driven by market forces that should perhaps be tempered, but not with heavy regulations like these.

Malcolm Bruce: That is what the debate is about. It is a fair, reasonable and constructive point. I can make the copper-bottomed statement that farmers are perfectly capable of change and adaptation. They have proved that over many years. However, right now, most of them are not making a living. Whatever the Government do, whether it is implementing the Curry report or these regulations, they must accept that the exchange rate, the fact that they did not receive the agrimoney compensation in full and the market effects mean that most farmers cannot make a living. Unless they make a living, there will be no one to manage the environment or produce the food in the quantities that we need. That is the difficulty facing the Government. The hon. Member for East Surrey was right to say that the timing is unfortunate, but because of infraction proceedings we must do something about it.
	I am concerned that the regulations could be bureaucratic. The language in the guidelines is gentle, but it effectively means that every farmer in the country could be in negotiation with the Department. That is perfectly possible. We know that the Department has difficulty negotiating with itself at the moment, never mind negotiating with farmers. The Department's ability to handle this is not reassuring—I am sure that it will not be able to handle the vast amount of work. Paragraph 3 of the guidelines says:
	"Although these procedures are based on legal requirements, with penalties for non-compliance, we will seek wherever possible to apply them in co-operation with the farmers and others who may be involved."
	The guidelines go on to make suggestions about agri-environment schemes.
	Most farmers will want to know how the regulations will apply in practice, whether there will be a genuine partnership and whether it will be over-bureaucratic. I welcome the fact that the Government have said that there will be a review after 18 months and that there will be an opportunity to see whether the operation should be lightened, tightened or clarified. I give the Government credit for acknowledging that we are not quite there yet and that we need to apply the regulations in law and see how they work.
	The Minister must understand that gentle words, which are, nevertheless, legally enforceable, give cause for concern because people do not know when they will be in breach or the costs and the detail in which they will be engaged. It will cost some money to put up schemes for consideration. The time scale is specific. Thirty-five days is not a long time to get advice and, sadly, there is no longer the free or low-cost advice that was available when the agricultural development and advisory scheme was at is height. That is a matter for concern, because it will impose significant costs. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Department will take an approach that does not require farmers to employ expensive consultants to qualify, or to avoid refusal if they are trying to make some changes to their farm or its management.
	The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned a reduction in the value of farms—a point that has also been made by the NFU—and I noticed that the Minister shook his head. I find it hard to believe the NFU's claim that land values will be affected across the board. However, individual farms could be affected, which would be a legitimate concern for them, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.
	I agree with the point that it is less than satisfactory that the right of appeals should be from the Department to the Department. The Department is unlikely to change its mind on appeal if the same people are considering the issue. The right of appeal to an arm's-length, independent body is normal and what people expect. In Scotland, that was an issue in disputes over payments under the IACS scheme and an appeals process has now been established. The Minister is at arm's length and is engaged in the process only as a participant, rather than as the determinant of the appeal. Such a process would be appropriate in this instance.
	We have all received representations from the NFU and the Country Landowners Association, but we have also received representations supporting the regulations from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which—as we should remember—is one of the biggest public membership organisations in the country. It far outweighs the membership of all the political parties combined and carries much clout and muscle as a result.
	One farmer in my constituency has long worked with the RSPB. He will admit that he has a personal obsession with the issue and that he is not typical, but his farm provides a fantastic array of habitats and reserves for birds and other wildlife. That has significantly affected the whole area, because he provides—in some cases—the only feeding or resting places for the birds, alongside a successful arable farm. He makes the point that relatively small changes on the margins have substantial positive implications for wildlife.
	Farmers ask, "Why should anyone interfere with me when I want to reorganise my fields and change the boundaries?" However, we know that although the removal of one hedge does not make much difference, the removal of all the hedges makes a huge difference. Similarly, ploughing up to the hedge leaves one habitat, but ploughing 3 ft short of the hedge has a significant impact on insects and wildlife. In that case, farmers need uniform guidelines, so that they do not have to go through an individual process. The hon. Member for East Surrey suggests that the helpline is undeveloped, but it could provide the answers. We need clear answers to straight questions, and that would greatly simplify the bureaucracy.

Peter Ainsworth: The issue of hedgerows is now covered by regulations, and the example that the hon. Gentleman has just given of minor changes to field boundaries would not fall within the scope of these regulations. The real question is what the regulations would achieve other than an increase in red tape.

Malcolm Bruce: As a Liberal Democrat, I am—not surprisingly—proposing a third way. The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about excessive regulations and, on the basis of what we know at the moment, so are farmers. I congratulate him on instigating the debate, because the questions need to be answered, both today and in the practice and the review in the next 18 months. The Conservatives claim that the regulations are excessive and will not achieve enough. In 18 months, they or the Government will be proved right, and then we may get the balance right.
	The Minister is enacting legislation because of the threat of infraction proceedings by the EU, but his proposals are not clear. The industry does not understand them fully and nor do the environmentalists. To be honest, I am not convinced that the Department understand them fully either. However, that is not meant as a devastating criticism. If, during the next 18 months, the Government make an honest attempt to get the balance right and, at the end of that time, the review systematically deals with the issues, we may produce legislation that will work.
	The Minister should listen to the concerns about excessive bureaucracy and the consequent costs. He should also make the case for the environmental benefits. He also needs to reassure farmers that he is trying to offer a simple, clear and comprehensible system that they can live with, and which is not too bureaucratic, costly or confusing. Farmers certainly should not face penalties when they did not know that their practices would incur them. I hope that the Minister will address those legitimate concerns now and during the next 18 months.

Henry Bellingham: I endorse the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), but at the start I declare an interest because I own land in Norfolk that could be affected by the regulations.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, farming is in real crisis at the moment. In the two years before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, 42,000 farmers left the industry. Anyone who has visited livestock-producing areas, such as that represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), will know of the sheer devastation in those communities. Compensation for those farmers is a big issue, but other industries—such as tourism—were affected by the foot and mouth crisis and the issue of compensation for them also arises.
	Historically, the arable areas have been the most viable and prosperous farming districts. If the prices of one or two crops failed one year, another crop would have a good year. If grain prices were down, people would get a better price for potatoes. If potatoes and grain were both down, they could rely on the prices for sugar beet. Until recently, many farms in Norfolk were very diversified. For example, many had livestock, such as poultry. Now, every farm in Norfolk is making a loss and if it were not for IACS, the farmers would face a disaster on the same scale as those farmers in the livestock breeding and rearing areas.

Andrew Robathan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not all his local farmers have yet received their IACS payments because of inefficiency and industrial action in the Department? That delay could be critical for a farmer on the cusp of bankruptcy.

Henry Bellingham: That is absolutely right. People assume that all farmers in places such as Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire and Leicestershire farm 500 or 600 acres, but they do not. Many smallholders in those counties struggle to make a living, possibly after losing the other job that they used to do in addition to working the smallholding.
	As I said, there is a silver lining. The countryside stewardship scheme and other agri-environmental schemes have meant that many farmers receive other incomes. Charles Barratt, a prominent Norfolk business man and stockbroker, recently expressed in his newsletter his gratitude that the country stewardship scheme existed. He was right to do so, as the countryside is changing. The trend to ever more intensive farming has been reversed, and the days of prairie farming are over. More emphasis is now placed on habitat, conservation and biodiversity.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey made a good point when he said that more and more farmers recognise that what is good for the environment is often also good for business. The overwhelming majority of farmers now look for every opportunity to encourage the wildlife on their farms.
	I hope that the Minister will recognise the crucial importance of country sports, for example. He goes on about the need to protect jobs in the countryside, but he is part of the campaign to destroy those jobs. That goes down badly with farmers in my constituency.
	Travelling around Norfolk, one is struck by the number of tubular tree guards in hedges, which show that new hedges are being laid. One also sees increased conservation headland. Last Friday, I went on an ecological walk around John Alexander's Westwick estate, and every field had a 20-metre headland. I also noticed that a number of rough field corners had recently been moved out of cultivation.
	That is typical of many East Anglian farms. The landscape is being transformed by dedicated and committed farmers, in a climate of extreme economic pressure. They are acting partly in response to the incentives that have been put in place, but also out of their love for the countryside.
	That is the context into which the regulations that we are discussing are being introduced. They will bring in environmental impact assessment procedures for projects to convert uncultivated land, or semi-natural land areas, to intensive agriculture. The Department's guidelines make clear the type of land that will be affected.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey noted, the regulations were published on 18 January, but they come into force tomorrow. No wonder, therefore, that there is so little awareness of what is going on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey also said that a number of organisations have voiced considerable concern about the regulations. The Council for the Protection of Rural England supported the regulations, and even said that they did not go far enough. However, the council did not produce a briefing paper. In contrast, a number of other organisations have produced excellent briefing papers, and I have also been contacted by a number of farmers in my constituency who are concerned. Farmers involved in the countryside stewardship scheme or others like it, or those who meet the set-aside obligations, are very worried indeed.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey pointed out, the 25 to 30 per cent. rye grass guideline test is of crucial importance. The measure means that land will be considered uncultivated if it has less than the threshold 25 to 30 per cent. of rye grass—or of white clover, or of other sown grass species indicative of cultivation.
	The National Farmers Union has stated clearly that the species of grass used by most farmers to ensure that they meet the requirements of the countryside stewardship scheme are such that, just three months after planting, land will be caught by the 25 to 30 per cent. rye grass guideline. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey made a good point when he said that farmers entering into the countryside stewardship scheme did so on a promise and a contract that made it very clear that new restrictions would not be imposed at the end of the agreement term. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some hint of comfort in that regard.
	I hope too that the Minister will accept that there should be no disincentive for farmers to enter the countryside stewardship scheme, which everyone agrees is excellent. It would be a great pity if farmers were discouraged from joining it, for the reasons that I have given.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey also spoke about the possible reduction in land values. Everyone knows that the value of farm land is now unrelated and disconnected from its underlying productive capacity. My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility that land values could be reduced by as much as £500 per acre. If he is correct, I hope that the Minister will comment.
	I hope that the Minister will also say something about the need for compensation for farmers affected by the measure. Will there be a compensation package of any sort? What is the Government's attitude to farmers who manifestly will be out of pocket as a result of the regulations?
	The Country Land and Business Association, among other organisations, is seeking formal assurances from the Government on the definition of semi-improved land. It is also concerned whether IACS-registered set-aside can be excluded on the basis that it is clearly neither uncultivated nor semi-natural. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) asked a moment ago, can DEFRA cope with the burdens of the new regulations? I very much doubt it, because many farmers in my constituency have complained bitterly to me that the IACS payments are well behind. They ring up Cambridge, talk to sympathetic people on the telephone and are told that the payment will arrive soon. I hope that the Minister understands that this money is crucial to cash flow. It is crucial, in many cases, to farmers being able to employ the few remaining staff they have left on their farms, if they employ anyone at all.
	I hope that the Minister will also consider whether it is really necessary to have criminal penalties, with farmers breaching the regulations committing a criminal offence. I agree that there must be penalties but should we really give farmers a criminal record and fine them heavily in the criminal courts over a matter that I believe should be in the civil court domain?
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) will be concerned about orchards. In the north-western part of my constituency, there are a number of growers of hard and soft fruits in the marshland area. The environmental impact assessment regime could prevent the grubbing up and replanting of redundant orchards. That would be a disaster. It would devalue the land and do the reverse of what the Minister has said on a number of occasions that he wants.
	The Minister has been down to my constituency. He came in 1998, looked around various orchards and went round a number of glasshouse complexes in the marshland. He came down to my constituency last Friday as well, but unfortunately did not tell me that he was coming. If he had told me, I would have made sure that we went round an orchard and met a number of small farmers in the marshland part of my constituency. However, perhaps he can make up for it by coming again in the future.

Greg Knight: Take him foxhunting.

Henry Bellingham: I certainly will. It would be good for him to see what happens on a foxhunt, because I doubt whether he has ever been on one.
	In his concise and excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said that farmers are demoralised and confused. Most are doing their level best to cope in extremely difficult circumstances. He was right to quote from the Curry report, which, on page 72, says:
	"We recommend that Government develop and publish a strategy for implementing forthcoming environmental Directives."
	If only they had a strategy for this particular directive. The report continues:
	"Besides describing how progress on meeting each Directive's environmental objectives is to be achieved, monitored and reported on, the strategy should include a regulatory impact assessment based on cost-benefit analysis covering the impact on farms."
	That is very well said.
	Of course the industry will go along with these regulations. However, it is crucial that they receive the assurances for which we have asked.

Paddy Tipping: This is an important debate in terms not just of the regulations before us but of the wider debate about the nature and purpose of the countryside. That debate has permeated the Chamber this evening.
	There has been some talk about how the regulations will affect land values. I am firmly on the side of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) in believing that the NFU's assessment may be exaggerated. Like him, I think that there may be effects on particular farms, but in general I do not think that there will be any effect on land values.

Peter Ainsworth: The figure may be exaggerated or it may not be. I was asking the Minister to make sure that he had formed a clear impression of the likely or possible impact on land values, given that they underpin so much in rural England.

Paddy Tipping: The Minister will speak for himself, but I see no evidence of agricultural land values falling. I accept that farming is in crisis and that farm incomes are very low, but I see no sign that land values will fall. I am certainly of the view that the regulations will have no effect whatsoever, except in the smallest case.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) spoke properly and wisely about adding value to the countryside, which is what I want to discuss. The real lesson to be drawn from the foot and mouth crisis is its effect on visitors to the countryside. When the footpath network was closed and people no longer visited the countryside, the rural economy was in crisis. Farmers who are concerned about the regulations—they have a right to be—should be concerned about the need to add value to the countryside so as to create a backdrop that people will wish to visit. In principle, it must be right that we should conserve high-value landscapes. We should build on work that hon. Members have done to safeguard hedgerows, look after stone walls and ensure that land that is uncultivated and has high value is maintained. We may argue about the scale, but in principle that must be the right thing to do.
	I have two questions for the Minister. First, the principle of the regulations as they stand is right, but there is a lack of clarity. It would be helpful for people who have concerns if what is meant by the high-value land that is specified and which lies behind the regulations is spelled out more clearly.
	Secondly, conservation bodies have a view about how they are to be consulted. The prime interest is the landowner, but other bodies will wish to be consulted. The regulations are clear. The Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency, for example, are to be consulted, but other bodies such as the wildlife trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which have already been mentioned, have enormous significance and can contribute to the debate. Those organisations have been consulted about the preparation of the regulations, but will they be consulted as a matter of course when applications are made?
	We should study the regulations carefully and get the balance right—the balance to create a living and changing countryside. The countryside does not stand still; it will always be changing. The farmer and the landowner are the major stakeholders, but they know that their livelihoods and interests depend on a countryside where the landscape is lifted and the environment enhanced. If properly applied, the regulations can help them. That is why I welcome the commitment that the regulations will be reviewed in 18 months.
	It is important that we get right the balance between the people who live and work in the countryside and those who want to visit it and who bring wealth and prosperity to the area. One aspect of this debate that has concerned me is the persistent and misguided argument of those who try to set urban and rural interests against each other. That argument will lead to destruction and pain. A sensible way forward is to see and work for a balanced approach, which adds value to both parties.

Andrew Robathan: I have an interest, in that I became a farmer last year—as declared in the Register of Members' Interests. I was one of the people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). I was extremely surprised; I had no idea that the environmental impact assessment regulations would be introduced this year until I heard about today's debate.
	I use my farm as an example to illustrate the problems of other people because I am fortunate—I do not rely on farm income for my livelihood. Fortunately, the good burghers of Blaby keep voting for me to come to this place. I hope that they continue so to do. I want to farm my land in an environmentally friendly way that conserves and encourages wildlife and birdlife.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey spoke well, and I agreed with him. He and I go back a long way on this issue and have had many discussions about it in the past. I remind the House that he was an instigator of the Hedgerows Bill in 1993. It was not successful but became the basis for further measures. He has an honourable record on wildlife and countryside conservation.
	When I was younger, I used to be outraged by the destruction that some farmers wrought on the countryside. They ripped out hedges wholesale. Many of us have seen how the landscape was changed by the work of farmers, but that is in the past.

Bill Wiggin: Having seen the way the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food handled the foot and mouth crisis, does my hon. Friend agree that farmers plough up moorland and hillside because they are so frightened about the way that they will be treated? It may offer them their only route of escape.

Andrew Robathan: I agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the regulations point to that result. Farmers feel harassed by their own Department. The fact that it is called DEFRA rather than MAFF makes things seem even worse. Many people call it the Department for the End of Farming and Rural Activity.
	I used to be outraged by the activities of farmers, but actually most farmers are just trying to make a living. There should be education and incentive, not over- regulation. My father-in-law was a farmer and my brother-in-law is a farmer and I know many farmers in my constituency. They are not all grain barons, riding about in Range Rovers; many of them are ordinary people who like working on the land. They are using their best endeavours to try to work the land, but they are under huge pressures to make a living—as I said earlier in an intervention on the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). When they are going bankrupt, no one could expect them to do anything but maximise the potential of their land.
	The regulations in this European directive bring a wry smile to my face because they amount to gold-plating. I do not think that the directive was intended to have that effect—although one might say that it is getting into the nooks and crannies of everyday life. The regulations are gold-plating that will make life more difficult for farmers.
	The point that I want to home in on is the countryside stewardship scheme, which was mentioned by two of my hon. Friends. I want to pursue that scheme because I want to make my land more environmentally friendly. As the Minister knows, a large number of farmers throughout the country are also adopting the scheme, because almost all farmers appreciate wildlife. They appreciate hedges. They like to see the land farmed in an environmentally friendly way, but they have to make a living. The countryside stewardship scheme has allowed them to do that, and to reverse some of the destruction that has taken place in the past.
	I want to pursue the scheme—as do many farmers—but I have been put on the back foot: I am concerned that if I take up the scheme, I shall end up tying my hands and the hands of farmers who farm my land in the future. The regulations mean that DEFRA will be able to interfere when anyone wants to make further changes on their land. That is a real concern.
	Will the Minister tell us whether he believes that the regulations will discourage people from taking up the countryside stewardship scheme? I fear that they may. If so, what mitigation will he offer to encourage what has been a most successful scheme?
	Overall, the great concern is that this further regulation will interfere with the livelihoods of people who are already on the cusp of bankruptcy. The industry is in real crisis. We are talking about ordinary people who work all the hours that God gave. I have seen the man who was ploughing my land working at 10 o'clock at night with headlights on. I, too, work at 10 o'clock at night, but not nearly as hard as a farmer does. These people work all the hours that God gave to make a livelihood, yet we are making their lives even more difficult.
	I applaud the desire in Brussels and in London for greater environmental aspects to our farming. I applaud the desire for greater conservation, and greater help for wildlife in the countryside. I do not, however, want to see greater interference, and what worries me about the regulations is that they represent further interference that will—

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as he had not finished his sentence. I want to ask him a question about the compliance cost of this new environmental impact assessment. If we continue to farm land that is currently being cultivated, and which would otherwise have been set aside or used for other environmentally friendly purposes, we shall be putting more food into a market that is perhaps incapable of absorbing it, thus forcing prices down even further. Farmers would do that, however, because they would be frightened of getting hit by an environmental statement, which the Secretary of State estimates will cost between £2,000 and £3,000 to prepare. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Andrew Robathan: That is a rather big issue, and I do not want to go too far down the line with it at the moment. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely, though, because that is what this is all about. Farmers want to farm; that is why they go into farming. They want to get out there and work the land and work with their animals; they do not want to deal with regulations, which always take time. More and more regulations will take more and more time. A common complaint from farmers is that they are submerged in paperwork, and unable to get out and do the farming. Candidly, many of them were not brought up in a world of form filling, and they find it very tiresome. I find it frightening when my hon. Friend talks about costs of £2,000 or £3,000.
	I am sure that the Minister will say that the regulations will not put a burden on farmers. I have not read his speech, but I can guess that that is what he will say. I would just draw his attention to paragraph 6, which sums up my argument:
	"No person shall begin or carry out a relevant project"—
	that covers just about any improvement to the land—
	"without first obtaining consent from the Secretary of State."
	That is a fairly burdensome requirement.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the broad consensus that the regulations have benefits in relation to good agricultural practice and to the protection of our habitats. I understand the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), and I shall try to address them.
	The regulations were introduced in 1985, and amended by directive 97/62/EC. Equivalent regulations are being made in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The hon. Member for East Surrey asked about the scale of the problem, and why the measures were introduced. The countryside survey produced by the Countryside Agency estimated that acid grassland has been reduced by 10 per cent in the last 10 years, and that calciferous grassland—which is very species-rich—has been reduced by 18 per cent. It also estimated that about 10,000 hectares of land that might fall into that category are lost annually. A significant amount of damage is, therefore, being done.
	The Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whose membership included Conservative Members, produced a unanimous report which pressed DEFRA—or MAFF, as it then was—to introduce these regulations as soon as possible, because of the impact of ploughing up downland and river valley land, and because of the problem of run-off and soil erosion, and the effect that that had on flooding. Indeed, in my travels following the floods of 2000 I visited people whose homes had been swamped with mud run-off from ploughed downland that had for a long time been grassland. Turning it into downland was probably not the most appropriate use for it. There are therefore very good reasons for measures such as these.
	I am pleased that hon. Members recognise that the language in the guidelines is non-confrontational. The talk is of co-operation and the aim is to make the measure work. I am pleased also that the hon. Member for Gordon and my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood recognise that within 18 months there will be a formal review of the way in which the regulations are working. The idea is to take up the points that have been raised and to ensure that the measures have bedded down. We need to learn from the experience of operating environmental impact assessments whether there is a need to change or fine-tune the regulations. We are trying to be proportionate and co-operative.

Peter Ainsworth: The fact that the regulations will be reviewed is most welcome. The Minister says that there are good reasons for introducing them. It is impossible to resist the temptation to ask why, if that is the case, he has waited to be threatened with infraction procedures by the European Union before doing so.

Elliot Morley: From my days in the old Ministry of Agriculture, I have asked for the regulations to be introduced. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there has been a great deal to do, and I point out that there has been over a year of consultation on the measure, and rightly so. It makes a big change; it is complex, and I make no apologies for the length of the consultation.
	I am a little surprised at the hon. Gentleman's point, bearing in mind the fact that the measure appeared in 1985, and there was no sign of it being introduced until we began to make progress. He is right to say that there is a threat of infraction procedures, and we cannot ignore that, but I believe that the measure has an important role to play. It is important that we get it right, that it is proportionate and that we take on board the points that have been made about bureaucracy. We have been trying to do that in the consultation process.

Hugh Robertson: Will the Minister give an undertaking—I ask not so much as a constituency MP but as the secretary of the parliamentary fruit group—that as part of the review in 18 months' time he will consider horticulture in particular? Many fruit farmers in my constituency and elsewhere produce their trees over a 16 or 17-year economic period and they are very worried about the effects of the regulations.

Elliot Morley: I have not forgotten the point about orchards—I have here a note about it—and I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I shall come to it.
	The directive requires an environmental assessment to be carried out on projects that are likely to have significant environmental effects. Guidelines have been sent to all farms, and more detailed guidelines are available to all farmers. That information can be found on our website, to which I hope more and more farmers have access. Agriculture projects are the sole subject of the regulations, and other parts of the EIA directive have already been implemented. Town and country planning legislation deals with projects requiring planning permission, and other measures deal with specific matters such as forestry.
	We announced in the rural White Paper our intention to consult on implementation of the uncultivated land provisions of the EIA directive. As hon. Members have made clear, there is a strong general wish for farming to be environmentally responsible; indeed, our countryside stewardship schemes have been very popular and are over-subscribed. That desire to be environmentally responsible is reflected in the five-point plan for wildlife-friendly farming drawn up by the NFU and English Nature, and I pay tribute to that. The statute that we are debating forms part of a wide spectrum of measures—voluntary or enforced through regulation where necessary—to ensure a sustainable future for our countryside and our farming industry.
	As I said, we have consulted widely on these measures: first on the options for implementation and then on the draft regulations and guidelines. We have been concerned throughout the process to find ways of accommodating and reconciling the need for proper environmental safeguards and the need to avoid excessive regulation and cost for farmers. We are very grateful to the statutory agencies and other organisations for their invaluable help in framing the new procedures.
	In the guidelines, we emphasise in particular the Department's intention to apply the measures in co-operation with farmers, wherever possible. If problems arise in implementing the EIA regulations when the farmer is considering changing the use of the land, we will discuss the issue. It is part of the procedures and guidelines that the farmers or landowners can contact our regional offices, and we will work with them to try to find a solution and give them whatever guidance we possibly can.
	I was asked whether we would be flexible in applying the guidelines and in the exact contents of the environmental statements, and I can certainly give that assurance. We will be flexible, especially in the bedding-down period when people have to get used to things. I repeat that the statements will be required only for projects that are likely to have significant environmental effects. We will use the full flexibility permitted under the directive in line with our principles of reasonable and fair legislation, so I give that assurance.

Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that one of the points that is always made about such regulations is that there is not a level playing field. Can the Minister assure us that no significant change will be dealt with under these regulations that will not be covered by equivalent regulations on the continent? Are we covering any changes that they are not?

Elliot Morley: I made a point of finding out what other countries are doing in relation to these regulations, because it is important that we examine how they are being applied elsewhere. The problem is that various countries have different regulations in the first place, so they are not strictly comparable. For example, in many European countries, farming comes within the planning guidelines. In our country, of course, many farming activities are exempt from the planning guidelines. In many countries, these regulations are applied through the planning process, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is somewhat more onerous and restrictive than the way in which we propose to apply these regulations. It is not right to think that other countries are much more lax about these regulations and do not apply them.
	I was asked about the thresholds. We consulted on them in some detail and, in the end, we did not think that specific thresholds would be appropriate because even small projects in certain situations can have significant effects. That point was made by the hon. Member for Gordon. Small areas can have significant biodiversity importance, and damaging small areas has a cumulative effect. That is why we think that we should have a threshold, but I hope that our procedures will be quick in dealing with small areas, so that farmers and landowners will not find them onerous.
	We have clearly stated that the guidelines for routine farming, such as maintenance of drainage works and watercourses, are not subject to the EIA procedures.
	Orchards may be subject to the EIA regulations if they contain old grassland that has not been ploughed for many years. We are thinking of ancient orchards, not modern orchards, in which intensively managed trees generally need to be replanted. They would normally not come within the scope of the EIA regulations, but there are some important orchards that have not been ploughed and contain very old trees, and they are often not commercial.
	Indeed, the orchards that I saw in Norfolk had been entered into our stewardship scheme because of their biodiversity value. That is an option for their owners. In other parts of the country, I have seen commercial orchards where organic apples were grown for Bulmers. Those apples received a premium and the orchards were also in our stewardship scheme. There are options for such orchards, but they are the exception in modern fruit management, rather than the norm.

Hugh Robertson: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I really must get on because I want to deal with a range of issues. I will happily answer any question that he may have if he writes to me.
	Concern has been expressed about the agri-environment schemes. I understand that issue, but there is no evidence to show that it is putting people off those schemes. We will keep those schemes and the effect that they may have on other schemes under careful review. We are committing ourselves to a major review of the schemes in the light of the recommendation by the commission on farming and food that we should consider restructuring the way in which agri-environment schemes are applied. There is a great deal of sense in that recommendation and, although the construction of such schemes will be challenging, I am more than willing to address seriously the commission's recommendation.
	We also intend to renew schemes for those who have entered into countryside stewardship schemes, and who may now be worried that, because of the regulations, we will not be interested in renewing the scheme. That is not our intention. We intend there to be a long-term investment in the countryside, and a long-term partnership with landowners and farmers. We will, of course, renew such schemes.
	We cannot give a general undertaking to disregard the environmental impact assessment procedures if land is taken out of an agri-environment scheme. First, some of the land may have fallen within the scope of the EIA whether it was in the scheme or not. Secondly, there may have been a great deal of public investment to help to create environmental enhancements. It is not unreasonable that an assessment should be carried out when changes are proposed for the management of that land.
	On set-aside, I can confirm that the directive does not define key terms such as "uncultivated". We do not intend to include generally within the scope of the EIA directive land that has been set aside for a period from arable cropping. I wanted to give that reassurance.
	In relation to appeal procedures, we want to be flexible about the type of procedure to be used in each case. The appellant will always have the right to be heard at a hearing or a local inquiry, and the Secretary of State's powers to determine an appeal can be delegated to an independent appointed person. That is provided for in the regulations. We believe that the provisions are fair, and, as with all aspects of the regime, they will be reviewed to see how they operate in practice. I expect the delegated procedure to be used in many cases in reference to an independent person.
	On awareness of the new procedures, I mentioned that we have sent an explanatory leaflet to all registered agricultural holdings in England and more detailed guidelines are freely available. A dedicated helpline is operating for telephone inquiries.

Peter Ainsworth: I seek clarification from the Minister. I think I heard him say that an appeal could be heard by an independently appointed person. However, page 13 of the guidance says:
	"The Secretary of State may personally decide your appeal, or appoint someone to decide it on his or her behalf".
	Surely, if that person is appointed by the Secretary of State, they are not independently appointed.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman will find that that is the terminology. Those who decide appeals, throughout the range of appeals within DEFRA, are all appointed by the Secretary of State in that respect. However, the bodies are independent, and the appeal would be independent and accountable to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman need not get too concerned about that—the appeal would be heard properly and professionally, and I do not see a problem with that. However, to return to the point, a review will take place in 18 months, and if people are not satisfied with the appeals procedure, and they feel that it needs to be changed, we shall consider that.
	Some of the arguments are reminiscent of those used in relation to the Hedgerows Bill which the hon. Gentleman promoted. As he will know, I dealt with that Bill as an Opposition Member, and I fully supported it. It is a case of, "Now the regulations are in, they are nowhere near as difficult as people thought they were going to be." Farmers and landowners have learned to operate within the rules, and the rules have been made as flexible and realistic as possible to achieve the balance that people have talked about.
	On land prices, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is right. There is no sign that land prices have fallen; indeed, the opposite is the case. Some farming organisations have speculated that the measures that we are considering might devalue land. However, I do not believe that, because we are now entering a new era in which production subsidies will inevitably be scaled down. We cannot say for how long the arable area payments will exist. Much of the value of land is underpinned by such things as its IACS—integrated administration and control—value, for example. As those subsidies are scaled down, more and more money will go into agri-environment schemes; more environmental schemes will be available. Thus, we have land which in the long term will devalue in the sense of the subsidies that it attracts, and land which under countryside stewardship schemes will maintain its value by attracting maintenance and support payments. I believe—I speak personally rather than on any analysis—that the long-term value of land that has environmental value will be higher than that currently underpinned by subsidies, which is unsustainable. Although we shall have to see, I do not believe that the measures will have a long-term effect on the value of land.
	The introduction of the regulations for uncultivated land and semi-natural areas plays a vital part in the agenda for sustainable development, which is very much at the heart of the new Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We attach central importance to it and I believe that the approach commands wide public support. I appreciate that just about everyone who has spoken in the debate supports the principles of the regulations, although not unreasonably has questions about the details. I believe that we can resolve the issues that have been raised reasonably and proportionately, and make the regulations work with the minimum of inconvenience to farmers and landowners.
	In the end, the regulations will enhance the value of our countryside and the protection of important habitats, and be of value and assistance to those who are the guardians of the countryside—those who work the land and who I am sure share our desire to ensure that it is managed in a proper, sustainable way for future generations. The measure will protect the value of the landscape and the biodiversity of our countryside.

Peter Ainsworth: This has been an extremely useful and helpful debate. Hon. Members have raised a number of points that are important to those on whom the regulations will bear. The Minister's concluding remarks will be read with great care by people who manage the land and by environmentalists. One lesson that we are all learning is that the interests of those two sets of people are becoming more and more intertwined. I sincerely hope that the regulations will help to advance that process and not stand in its way.
	I am delighted that the regulations will be reviewed so thoroughly after 18 months. I thank my hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate, which has been a constructive afternoon's work. I am grateful to the Minister for the several assurances that he has given.

Elliot Morley: As I did not answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, I want to take the opportunity to emphasise that the review will of course be open to all interested parties, including conservation organisations and the Wildlife Trust, as well of course as farming and landowners organisations.

Peter Ainsworth: The Minister has more velvet gloves in his pocket than I originally imagined.
	Question put and negatived.

Line of Route

Marion Roe: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on The Summer Line of Route—The 2001 Opening and Proposals for the Future (House of Commons Paper No. 433).
	This is the fourth time, and perhaps the last for the time being, that I have come before the House to present a report of the Administration Committee on the summer opening of the Line of Route. I should like to begin by expressing my thanks and those of the Committee to all those staff of both Houses of Parliament whose hard work contributed to the success of the 2001 opening. The efforts of the visitor manager, the Serjeant at Arms, the director of catering services, the director of finance and administration, and their respective staffs, the security force and the blue badge guides are very much appreciated. I also thank my colleagues on the Administration Committee for their contributions to the report, which was agreed unanimously, and the Leader of the House for making time available for this debate.
	On the report, hon. Members will have noted my Committee's two main conclusions: that the 2001 opening was a great success and that, as a result, the summer opening of the Line of Route should be made permanent. As it outlines, Line of Route tours were offered to the public between Monday 6 August and Saturday 29 September 2001, with the exception of Friday 14 September when hon. Members returned to debate the terrorist outrages in the United States. Some 86,284 visitors toured the Line of Route over that period, an increase of 110 per cent. over visitor numbers in the summer of 2000. A further 12,500 people visited Westminster hall and Portcullis House free of charge during the London open house weekend.
	The business plan for the 2001 opening specified a challenging target of 85,000 visitors. That the number of visitors exceeded that, despite the problems dogging the tourism industry last summer, is a sign of how well the tours were received. In fact, sampling of visitor response cards and comments in the visitors' book showed that 95 per cent. of those responding said that the tours had greatly exceeded their expectations.
	My Committee considered a selection of comments from the visitors' book and I can confirm that the feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with many stressing the importance of the summer opening continuing. Received wisdom in the tourism industry suggests that each satisfied visitor may recommend the visit to 10 others, creating a vast potential demand for the Line of Route. If, however, we are to sustain a high level of visitors, it is crucial that the marketing operation begins as soon as possible, which is why I am so grateful for this early debate.
	As the summer opening has run successfully for two summers, we recommend that it be placed on a permanent footing. It would send out the wrong signal about Parliament's accessibility and desire to engage the public were we to decide not to continue with the immensely popular tours. Such a decision would not be understood.
	We are not implying that all possible lessons have been learned over the past two years, but if the summer opening is made permanent, it will create a stable and certain basis on which officials of both Houses can best plan and carry out the summer opening. For example, criticisms of the summer opening were mainly about ticketing arrangements which, as any hon. Member who wandered through Westminster Hall this summer will have noticed, were less than ideal. In the context of a permanent summer opening, House officials will be able to review options for the permanent siting of a ticket office, which will address the problems observed this summer. Of course, my Committee will expect to be kept fully informed of the deliberations and plans of officials.
	Hon. Members can be assured that the Committee was adamant that the summer operation must operate within certain constraints. The Palace of Westminster is primarily a place of work and the summer opening must not interfere with that work or constrain the ability of either House to sit at any time. This summer's events, with the recall on 14 September, reinforced the importance of that criterion. Arrangements must not constrain the Parliamentary works programme; nor must they impinge on the current rights of Members to sponsor visits to the Palace or on the important work of the parliamentary education unit. Our report laid down a fourth criterion, which was of course implicit at the time of previous openings: that any arrangements for the summer opening must not impede the application of appropriately high levels of security within the parliamentary estate.
	I now turn to the thorny issue of ticket pricing. I realise that views differ on both sides of the House. Members will recall that both trial summer openings operated to a planned deficit. The £3.50 ticket price reflected only the charge for the blue-badge guide; the rest of the operating costs were met by the merchandising operation and a net sum from the Votes of both Houses—limited to £232,000, with the Commons taking a 60 per cent. share. Effectively, through the House Votes, the United Kingdom taxpayer subsidised each visitor to the summer Line of Route. In 2000 the notional subsidy per head was £6.26; in 2001 that was reduced to £2.31, largely owing to increased ticket revenues and savings on overheads.
	Of course there is always scope for greater efficiency, but the fact remains that should the agreed deficit approach be continued, the United Kingdom taxpayer will continue to subsidise summer visitors, at least half of whom are thought to be from overseas. For that reason my Committee recommends that visitors be charged a realistic rate for summer tours of the Palace—a price that would recoup the costs of the summer opening.
	I make no apologies for repeating what was said in the Committee's report, as it is crucial.
	"We are committed to the principle of free democratic access to the Houses of Parliament".
	That is in paragraph 23. Paragraph 24 states
	"we do not believe that charging a realistic price for summer tours of the Palace encroaches upon the rights of the public to visit Parliament".
	I remind Members of the many opportunities our constituents have freely to view this place at work, and to engage with their Members of Parliament by listening to debates, attending meetings of Standing and Select Committees, meeting their constituency Members, participating in sponsored line-of-route tours, taking part in lobbies and participating in education-unit activities. Nothing in our proposal would impinge on any of those crucial rights. We propose the charging of a fair price for additional access—and a guided tour—when the House is not sitting, and an end to the subsidy of visitors and tourists by taxpayers.
	We estimate that the charges would be £7 for adults and £3.50 for those receiving concessions. Carers and the under-fives would not be charged, and we envisage discounts for family groups. I invite Members to compare those charges with charges for similar attractions in London. For example, Buckingham palace charges £11.50 for adult admission, Westminster abbey charges £9, and St Paul's cathedral charges £7.50 for admission and a guided tour.
	I hope Members will agree with me, and with my Committee, that our proposed charges for tours guided by professional blue-badge guides through this wonderful building still represent value for money. The ticket price will cover the cost of employing guides and of additional security, and additional staff costs. I am thinking of ticketing facilities and extra costs imposed on the parliamentary works directorates resulting from the summer opening.
	Any revenue from merchandising could in future be ploughed back into improvements in the infrastructure and facilities of the Line of Route. As Members will see in the report, the merchandising operation in 2001 learned from that of the previous year and offered a reduced, but more popular, number of souvenir lines for sale. Although there was a net profit of £10,000, there is still scope for a higher spend per visitor. Accordingly, we have suggested that a new souvenir range addressing the wants of summer visitors be considered.
	Hon. Members will no doubt ask themselves about the impact of any modernisation initiative. The Leader of the House has already helpfully stated that the recess this summer will follow its usual pattern, so the question does not arise for 2002. We rely a great deal on the flexibility of our officers and staff. I am confident that, should the pattern of the summer recess alter, it is possible for the summer opening to operate around it. The infrastructure of the summer Line of Route does not demand a long period of setting up or striking, as was shown when the House sat one day in September last summer. It would be possible to open the Palace to visitors in August and again in October.
	My Committee expects to be kept fully informed of the plans of the Line of Route steering group to that end. As hon. Members will know, any decision on the operation of the Line of Route must be agreed by the House of Lords. Throughout our deliberations, we have kept the House of Lords Administration and Works Sub- Committee fully apprised of progress and our conclusions. I understand that that Committee awaits the decision of the House of Commons on the future of the Line of Route with interest.
	I do not wish to detain the House further, but I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the unanimous report of my Committee. Should it be approved, we can look forward to many more visitors enjoying the tours of the Palace and all its splendours, and finding out more about the work that we all do here. I commend the report to the House. 5.47 pm

Martin Linton: I have recently re-read the debate of 26 May 1999, when the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) tabled a memorable amendment, which was accepted. Before coming to the House with proposals, it was incumbent on members of the Administration Committee to ask whether we had met the concerns of everyone who spoke in that debate and whether they would be happy with our arguments.
	I must admit that I found it a little difficult to fathom some of the arguments advanced in that debate. For instance, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who, sadly, is not here, explained that he had visited 30 state capital buildings in the United States, and looked forward to visiting the remaining 20; they were all free so, by extension, our Parliament should always be free to visitors. He did not mention the fact that some of those buildings are not the tourist attraction that the House of Commons is; never mind.
	Having tried to fathom the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I moved on to that advanced by our former colleague, Dale Campbell-Savours, who represented Workington. He recounted an incident in which a senior Member tapped him on the shoulder after he had introduced a particularly incendiary and revolutionary proposal to start sitting at 10 o'clock and finish at 6, and said
	"You cannot change things . . . that have been traditions for decades."—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 404.]
	Mr. Campbell-Savours apparently took that advice and believed that it would be wrong to have a summer opening of Parliament. Again, I found it difficult to understand his reasoning.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) recounted that when he was a lad in Wimbledon he travelled up to the House of Commons in summer and visited it for free. He argued that war memorials were free, so Parliament should always be free for visitors. He failed to reveal the fact that it is still free to visit Parliament whenever the House is sitting. However, the Committee has been able to deal with the argument that he advanced.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will no doubt explain to the House how far we have been able to allay his fears. I can only say in advance of hearing what he has to say that he seemed previously to have two main arguments. First, he argued that the summer opening, which had been proposed but had not yet happened, might be the thin end of the wedge and that we might end up charging people to visit at Easter, Whitsun or Christmas. Indeed, he seemed to fear that we might even charge them for visiting while the House was sitting. I hope that he feels reassured that that has not happened. Despite two summer openings, people have not been charged outside the period when the House has traditionally been closed anyway. I hope that he acknowledges that the policy has not so far been the thin end of any wedge.
	As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's other fear was that the change would lead to the contracting out of many of the services involved, which are better performed by servants of the House. I do not know whether he objects to the use of Ticketmaster to issue the tickets for tourists, but apart from that, I think that all the other services have been provided in house. The report does not propose mass contracting out, but in any case, I do not know whether that is still a live fear in his mind. I shall be interested to hear whether he still has any of the concerns that he expressed in speaking to his amendment.
	In so far as other speakers expressed concerns, they related mainly to the analogy with free access to museums. As I have a very modest role at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I felt that there was an onus on me to consider whether, as we have now introduced free entry to national museums—I am glad that we have done so—the same principle should apply to the House of Commons. I see a world of difference between the two. Museums and galleries are sources of information that one visits not only once in one's life, but regularly. The reason why we believe in free access to museums is the same as the reason why we believe in free access to information and knowledge: museums and galleries are there to inform. The same principle has never been applied to heritage sites. For instance, the Tower of London is a heritage site. English Heritage has many sites where it charges the public for access. Nobody has ever suggested—I have never heard such a proposal from the hon. Gentleman or anyone else—that it is wrong to charge for access to such a site, whether it is Old Sarum at Salisbury or anywhere else. There is a difference in principle.
	There is still free access to Parliament as a working building. People can sit in the Strangers Gallery, attend a Committee sitting or see their MP. The only thing for which there is a charge—it applies at any time of year—is a guided tour. When this place is open, people are charged only for the tour. The principle that the Committee seeks to establish is that in the one recess in which the House would normally be closed to the public, the small on-cost of making tours possible should be borne by the person who enjoys the tour.
	That principle is also accepted by the British museum. People can visit for free, but if they want a guided tour of the museum, they pay a fee of £8. People can visit the British library for free, because it is a library, but if they want a tour, they pay a charge to cover the cost. People can visit Somerset house for free if they are visiting it on business, but if they want a tour, they pay. Indeed, the same is true across the square in Westminster abbey. Worshippers visit the abbey for free, but if people want to visit as tourists, they pay £9. We are simply abiding by that principle. The House of Commons is open in the summer. As a Member who represents a nearby constituency, I come here every weekday apart from, perhaps, during a fortnight in August. The place is open and I can take people around the building. I can use it all the time, but it is not open to the extent that it could deal with a constant stream of tourists without employing extra staff.
	When I first came here, I thought that it was a crying shame that the place was closed throughout August. Every day thousands of tourists milled around Parliament square looking rather puzzled because the House of Commons, which they had imagined they could visit, was closed. Because of that strange anomaly, the House was persuaded to open—in a half-hearted way in my opinion—on a trial basis in the summer of 2000.
	Tickets were available only in advance. People had to telephone. They could not come to the House of Commons and buy a ticket. About 95 per cent. of foreign tourists will go to the place they want to visit and buy a ticket there. Under that scheme, they had to telephone in advance, pick the tickets up in Regent street and find their way here. The Speaker had to intervene during that summer because it was so ridiculous that people could not buy tickets. She insisted that some tickets were available at the House.
	In the summer of 2001, the scheme was, I am glad to say, repeated. This time there was a ticket office on-site. As a result, the number of visits more than doubled. Bizarrely, the ticket office was sited in Westminster Hall. People had to go through security at St. Stephen's entrance to get into Westminster Hall, queue for a ticket, go back out of St. Stephen's entrance, go to Black Rod's entrance, queue again and go through security again before starting their visit. Not surprisingly, they found that very frustrating but that was the only way it could be done, given the fact that the House had not agreed to a permanent scheme.
	In the summer of 2001 a flat-rate charge of £3.50 was levied, a modest sum when we consider that a visit to the Banqueting hall down the road costs £3.90 and the Banqueting hall is hardly more than a single room—a very nice room but it is not to be compared with the House of Commons. A visit to Westminster abbey costs £9, to the London Eye £9, and to Buckingham palace £11.50. A visit to a commercial tourist attraction such as Madame Tussaud's costs about the same, as does a visit to the Tower of London.
	Therefore, it is not surprising that the tourists who came here during the summer were happy. Indeed, they were ecstatic and flabbergasted. The survey of visitors shows that 95 per cent. said that the tour exceeded their expectations. Clearly, having only paid £3.50 they did not expect much. If one reads their comments, one will see that surprise coming through time and again. Despite 11 September, visitors filled 80 per cent. of available capacity over the whole summer. On many days there was queueing in Parliament square. A visitor from Virginia in the United States wrote,
	"Wonderful tour
	"PS I'm so glad I finally got in!"
	People's main complaint was not the charge of £3.50 but the fact that they had to wait so long to get in. By charging only £3.50, there was a loss of £200,000 on the operation. It seems extraordinary that anyone can operate a tourist attraction such as the House of Commons and make a loss. There were queues in Parliament square and £200,000 was stuffed into the pockets of overwhelmingly overseas tourists, who enjoyed coming here. Most people from this country will visit when entry, although not the tour, is free.
	We have established the principle that this is just to do with summer opening and the costs associated with keeping the building open when it otherwise would not be. We have established the fact that, in the rest of the year visits will be free; that the autumn educational tours will also be free; that even in the summer Members of Parliament can take guests around for free; that the only cost charged to the tourist is to cover the extra cost of keeping the House open that one month; and that the alternative is either to make a huge loss for no particular reason, or—this would be criminal—to close the building when hundreds of thousands of foreign tourists are in the area. Given all that, I think that we have made a powerful case for charging a reasonable sum, which will still be modest when compared with all the neighbouring tourist attractions and cheaper than the Government charge for visits to most heritage sites.
	This is a phenomenally popular tourist attraction. I shall quote some of the comments made by visitors. I shall quote them in sequence, without editing them or leaving any out. They said, "The tour was magnificent", "brilliant", "Well worth visiting", "It would be useful to have a guide in Italian", "Excellent tour", "Great place to visit", "Wonderful tour". That last comment was from the Americans who said that they were glad to have finally got in. The comments continued, "Well worth a visit", "Most enjoyable", "Excellent tour", "very good", "very interesting" and so it goes on. There is not a single word of criticism, other than about the standard of the toilets.
	I am not saying that we should charge people more just because they enjoyed it, but since so many people want to come, they enjoyed it so much and the charge was so much less than for comparable places, it serves no purpose to charge a deliberately low or loss-making price. I hope that the Committee has persuaded those who had concerns before that there is no danger of extending this principle. It is different from the principle of free museums. It will enable us to open this place for the tens of thousands who want to come here in the summer, without imposing a cost on the taxpayer.

Greg Knight: I pay tribute to the members of the Select Committee on Administration who have prepared the report. Most of the departmental Select Committees are high profile. Some of them appear to travel frequently and they are widely regarded as prestigious bodies. The domestic Select Committees do not have such a high profile and are sometimes taken for granted. They perform an essential role and, on behalf of the Opposition, I should like to express our thanks and appreciation to all members of those Committees, from whichever party, for their diligence, dedication and hard work.
	I am broadly supportive of the report and I shall not seek to divide the House. However, I have some concerns and wish to make a number of observations and comments. It is right that the Administration Committee has as its primary objective the smooth running of this building as a place of work and that any arrangements put in place for visitors must not constrain Members in the discharge of their duties. Also, any such arrangements during these difficult times, must not breach our security. In my view, such considerations must remain at the forefront of any debate on public access to the Palace of Westminster.
	The hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) will be pleased to know that I am also firmly of the view that the opening of the Line of Route for visitors who are not accompanied by their elected representatives should be self-financing. I do not see why the taxpayers of east Yorkshire, or anywhere else, should subsidise visitors from other parts of the country, most likely, it appears, from the affluent south-east, or from any country overseas, whether affluent or not.
	I refer the House to sections 2 and 5 of the report which deal with duration, volume and costs. I am pleased to see the Leader of the House in his place. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) referred to his recent modernisation proposals. However, I wonder whether the Committee—in calculating its conclusions and projections—properly reflected on the proposal, announced by the Leader of the House, to change the timing of our summer recess so that, apparently, the House will sit during September. That will surely have a serious effect on revenue, but it is likely to do little to reduce administrative costs.
	The report refers to setting up a permanent visitor management office, and we are entitled to ask whether that will prove viable. Given that the House will sit for three weeks in September from 2003 onwards, should not the proposal for a visitor management office be revisited and perhaps abandoned? We should not proceed with any proposal that would leave the British taxpayer out of pocket.
	The Committee might therefore need to re-cost some of its plans before announcing the ticket price, and I look forward to hearing the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on that issue when she sums up. If the figures do not add up, we have two options: to increase the proposed admission fee to cover all the costs, or to abandon the experiment. I prefer the former option, but I would rather accept the latter than allow the proposals to become a drain on the public purse.
	I refer hon. Members to paragraph 25 of the report, and in passing I express my surprise—and some concern—at the following, almost throwaway sentence:
	"We suggest that the House authorities explore means of accepting payment in euros as well as sterling."
	No, no, no. Why on earth should we? This new, unliked and floundering currency is not legal tender in the United Kingdom, and I hope that it never will be. We should have none of it.

Martin Linton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that every other tourist attraction in London will accept euros by next summer? It is completely contradictory to argue that we should be commercially minded and not accept an extra cost, but that we should not accept euros.

Greg Knight: In this House, we lead and not follow. If current trends continue, the euro equivalent of a £7 admission fee, if it were accepted in good faith on a Monday morning, might be worth only a fraction of that amount by the time the attendants have cashed up and got to the bank. Why should we have to stand any financial loss caused by a continuing lack of confidence in this dubious currency? The case has not been made for this mother of Parliaments to accept anything but our own currency from any visitor, and I hope that we shall hear no more of this unnecessary and rather offensive suggestion.
	The Line of Route to which the report refers is the long-established and widely accepted route that Members are accustomed to and prepared to tolerate. In paragraph 37, the Committee points out that it is not suggesting extending the route, and it is correct, as some Members might find that unacceptable. However, I am rather concerned about the wording. The steering group is expected to
	"keep this matter under review",
	and apparently may decide to add to the Line of Route. I sincerely hope that no additions will be contemplated or authorised without reference to the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne chairs, and ultimately to the House.
	As at present, the proposed Line of Route will end in New Palace Yard, which is the last area of the parliamentary estate that visitors see before they leave. For how much longer will it look as if it is part of a film set for a new production of "Steptoe and Son"? We are right to be concerned about security, but why should the House have to tolerate the hideous concrete blocks that are scattered seemingly willy-nilly across New Palace Yard? They are not present at the entrance to the Lords, where an altogether more satisfactory arrangement exists. There, a metal barrier drops flush to the ground when vehicular access is required. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne why an identical arrangement cannot be introduced here, and as soon as possible.
	Apart from blighting our grade I listed building, the blocks mean that negotiating access to and egress from New Palace Yard is like taking part in an advanced drivers obstacle course, especially for people driving wide and long motor vehicles. The blocks should go forthwith. If necessary, an increased police presence should be provided until a more sophisticated security scheme can be put in place.
	Subject to my comments being satisfactorily answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne when she replies, I hope that the House will agree to the report.

Paul Tyler: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) in his limousine, nor to respond just yet to the hon. Members for Battersea (Martin Linton) or for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), the Chairman of the Committee.
	By way of introduction, I want to say that, despite comments to the contrary about my past involvement in these debate, I yield to no one in my admiration for this place, as both building and institution. I want as many of my fellow citizens and visitors from other parts of the world to experience it to its full extent.
	However, people did not always admire this building. Yesterday's edition of The Times contained a reprinted leader that originally appeared on the same date in 1861. Headed "The Decay of Parliament", it stated:
	"It is fortunate that we English are not superstitious people. If we were given to omens we might be scared out of our senses by the decay of our Houses of Parliament. At a moment when representative institutions are breaking down in America, the House just newly built for the Lords and Commons is crumbling away in preternatural ruin."
	It went on:
	"At last, after some four centuries, Parliament was burnt out, and it was resolved to build a magnificent Palace expressly for the sittings of the Imperial Legislature. At a cost perfectly fabulous, the structure has been raised; but scarcely have the workmen quitted the building when its walls are found to be externally in a state of decay".
	The leader explained that a commission had been set up to travel the length and breadth of the British Isles to find appropriate stone with which to build this great institution. I do not know the membership of that commission, but I do know a little about how both ends of this place work and I suspect that it contained a number of hon. Members. I suspect too that, as they went round the country, those hon. Members were more interested in making sure that stone from their particular areas was selected. As was remarked to me earlier today, they may also have discussed the matter over a great deal of claret.
	Apparently, the commission eventually recommended what was thought to be an
	"entirely new and imperishable stone, such as would last for ages without decay or repair . . . Commissioners were specially appointed to purvey this desirable material. After extensive and laborious researches, they succeeded in discovering a quarry which was said to satisfy the prescribed conditions, and the Houses of Parliament were erected accordingly."
	However, the 1861 leader added:
	"The river front of Sir Charles Barry's edifice bids fair to crumble away in the Thames within a few years after its completion."
	It concluded:
	"We must stop the decay somehow, for we certainly cannot afford new structures of that kind every 20 years."
	Fortunately, in more modern times we seem to have looked after the building rather better. It is in that context that the hon. Member for Broxbourne and her Committee—rightly, I believe—have sought ways in which more people can enjoy it. I have no disrespect for the work that the Committee has done, and any minor criticisms of the report that I may make should in no way be taken to seek to undermine that work.
	My first concern refers back to the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea. I am concerned that hon. Members should steer this exercise, whether it be temporary or permanent. Will the steering group, which is mentioned in passing, include members of the hon. Lady's Committee? It is important, for a number of reasons that have been adduced by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, that Members steer the exercise. It must not simply be left to the Officers. I hope that that will mean strict adherence to the principles set out in paragraph 14 of the report and the criteria in paragraph 23. They have been referred to already, and I believe them to be extremely important.
	This issue was at the forefront of Members' minds during the debate to which the hon. Member for Battersea referred. It is the thin end of the wedge in the way in which the House would be available to our constituents and in taking away from Members control over constituents' access. That is why I believe that in making a temporary expedient permanent, we should take stock of what is happening. The thin end of this wedge is still quite thin—the report's appendix refers to 26 full days and 20 half days. We must think hard about how that may be affected by the change in the recess arrangements in 2003.
	The hon. Member for Battersea referred to the extent to which what he called contracting out might take place. I call it old-fashioned privatisation. I know that under new Labour it is called contracting out, but to me it is privatisation, just as it was when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was a Member of the last Conservative Government. I am glad that a major change of emphasis has taken place in 2001. The proportion of the income coming from the direct sales by the House has increased and sales by Ticketmaster, the privatised institution outside the House, have gone down. In round figures, in 2000, Ticketmaster sold £115,000 worth of tickets, which decreased to £72,000 last summer, while our direct sales went up from £5,000 worth of tickets—this is just a temporary expedient—to £152,000. Those of us who want the House to have home rule over its own institution are reassured by that welcome change of emphasis.
	I accept the point made by the hon. Lady and her Committee that the subsidy from the House's Vote has been dramatically reduced, and that is to be welcomed. I accept that it would be reasonable to make it revenue- neutral in 2002 for the simple reason that we have, in capital expenditure, provided a wonderful new visitors centre. I hope that we will soon be allowed to look at it. We have spent quite a lot of money on a visitors centre which, while it will be of use to our constituents during other times of the year, will have an important role this year. If anybody asks why the price went up in 2002, the answer is because at long last we have some decent loos. The major criticism of many visitors is that we did not before, so that is a step in the right direction. That is the rationale for the increase in costs.
	I do not share the view of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire about the possible extension of the route into Portcullis House. Whenever I take constituents around the House I like them to see that we have good British architecture in 2001 and 2002 and that Parliament was rather more open-minded about commissioning good modern architecture than some of our immediate predecessors. The fact that Portcullis House was a runner-up for the Stirling prize last autumn was a great achievement not only for the architect but for the House. Many minor problems are being encountered there, such as handles on doors that no one with arthritis could possibly use to get out of an office in the event of fire. Basically, it is a handsome building which is doing its job well. I hope that the security problem, which I understand to be the major difficulty, can be resolved, and that we can include Portcullis House in the tour.
	I also hope that we will ensure that the security issue is dealt with properly as regards ticket sales. It makes no sense to bring people in through the security system to buy their ticket only for them to have to go out again. The hon. Member for Battersea made a fair point. The Committee is trying to deal with it and I hope that they do.
	Those are my two major qualms. Beyond those, the major concerns were expressed on both sides of the House when we voted on the proposal and when, uniquely in that Session, although those on both Front Benches were in favour of the motion, the majority of Members were on my side and voted for my amendment—I have never had that experience before and doubt that I will again.
	At the time of that debate there was a concern that we were commercialising the House. We were putting the work out to tender and reducing the respect that our fellow citizens and visitors would have for it. A sub-current of the debate was that many hon. Members thought that the Department of the Serjeant At Arms and other offices of the House were being privatised. Someone referred to it as a sort of "Ofdesk", and said that we would then have, "Housetrack" as a privatised company running the show. We have a visitor manager, which sounds as though we have gone down that track, but basically the Administration Committee has done an important job on behalf of the House and has responded to the concerns and anxieties of hon. Members and I wish the report well.

Stephen Twigg: I am pleased to speak after the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and to endorse what he said. I think that the concerns that were expressed in that debate three years ago have been met judging by the experiments of the past two summers and the report that is before us. I voted for the amendment that the hon. Gentleman proposed two and a half years ago.
	I will not be tempted by the Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), to debate the euro. Suffice it to say that I very much look forward to his hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) robustly defending the Administration Committee report in saying that the euro will be accepted as payment in the summer.
	First, I will make some general and brief remarks about the report and respond to the points made by the Liberal Democrat and Conservative spokesmen about the proposals for the summer recess. I am not convinced that it will be a major factor although I agree that the Administration Committee should address it. It is not proposed that the length of time that we are in recess should be reduced; the time will simply be configured differently. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is right that there will be less time and, therefore, less revenue in September, but that will be compensated for by extra recess time in July. The revenue implications may even be positive—there may be larger tourist numbers in July than in September.
	First, I thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne and other members of the Administration Committee for the work that they have done over the years in producing the proposals for the summer opening. The matter was first debated in the House in 1999 when the Committee produced its earlier proposals. At that time, the Committee noted, in its first report for the 1998–99 Session, that
	"for over 20 years casual visitors and tourists have been denied the opportunity of visiting the Palace and of seeing the home of Parliament and its treasures. This is a situation which the Administration Committee wished to see changed to enable as many people as possible to see the two Houses of Parliament."
	The House then asked the Committee to re-examine its proposals for summer opening of the Line of Route. As has been explained today, hon. Members were concerned that there should not be undue restrictions on such an important symbol of democracy, not only for this country but for citizens throughout the world.
	In 1999, the House decided that it wanted other options to be explored and costed. When that had been done, it was decided to open the Line of Route with the arrangements that have been in force for the past two years. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne set out clearly, that decision has resulted in two extremely successful summer openings.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who is not with us today but is a member of the Administration Committee, described the £3.50 entrance fee as
	"the best deal in town."—[Official Report, 26 February 2001; Vol. 363, c. 674.]
	when we last debated this matter. Clearly, that assessment is endorsed by the Administration Committee in the report before us.
	Between summer 2000 and summer 2001, the number of visitors has more than doubled. More than 86,000 visitors toured the Line of Route in the summer of 2001 and 95 per cent. of those who commented considered that the tours had greatly exceeded their expectations, a similar satisfaction rate to that in 2000 despite the greatly increased pressure on capacity. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, the House should be grateful to all those—the staff of the House and the excellent guides—who have worked hard to make the openings such a success.
	The motion invites the House to make the opening of the Line of Route permanent, but to do so on a different basis from the experiment and to return to the principle that underlay the Administration Committee's first proposals. The suggestion is that the system should no longer rely on a subsidy from Parliament. The Committee recommended:
	"Ticket prices for visitors should be set at a level to recoup the cost of running the summer opening."
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the then Leader of the House, said when the principle of reopening was debated in May 1999, the matter is one of genuine difficulty and delicacy. She said:
	"No hon. Member would wish to see our constituents denied access to the House—that would be entirely contrary to our parliamentary tradition—but, equally, many may have reservations about whether British taxpayers would wish us to use their money to subsidise access to tourists, primarily from overseas, who may very well be charged for that access by tour operators and organisers outside this place who arrange such visits."—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 390.]
	Now, as then, Members will have to decide where the balance lies. This is a House matter, and there is no Government position. If the House divides, I will vote for the report, for the reasons set out by the hon. Member for Broxbourne and other speakers in the debate.
	The Palace of Westminster is a workplace and those who visit to participate in our work, or to see us at work, will continue to have free access, as they should. It is easy to underestimate the extent to which the House is accessible during the times that we sit. Visitors are free to come to debates or attend Select Committee hearings as they wish. Our constituents can call for us in the Lobby. It is vital, as all speakers in the debate have said, that this free access to the proceedings of the House and its Committees is maintained. The Administration Committee's proposals reflect that.
	However, the House is not a museum; there is no such free access during the recess, when the House is not at work, and there has not been such access for many years. Indeed, before the Administration Committee raised the matter in 1999, access was limited to the guests of Members of Parliament, and to people on education unit tours. People want to see the Palace itself for many reasons—not only to see us at work.
	People who visit in summer do so as tourists. There are good reasons for wanting to do that: a sense of history; a sense of the importance of our democratic institutions; and a desire to admire the work of Barry and Pugin. Those are all perfectly legitimate reasons; indeed, I do not see why we should not support the opening on the ground that we, as Parliament, should do our bit for the tourist industry in London.
	I hope that the tours will lead to a greater understanding of this place and I welcome that greater access on principle. None the less, as the Committee noted, it is reasonable to ask those who want to visit the Palace as a tourist attraction to pay a fee that covers the cost of so doing. The Administration Committee's proposals will simply mean that those who visit the Palace of Westminster during the summer reopening will not be subsidised by the UK taxpayer to do so. The entrance fee will be set at a level which recoups opening costs, not to make a profit.
	I hope that the new scheme will also have the effect that—as recommended by the Committee—the infrastructure and facilities of the Line of Route will be improved by ploughing back any proceeds from merchandising. It is far easier to support spending on improvements for visitors when the operation is not subsidised. That could benefit all visitors to the Palace, not just those participating in the tours.
	I share the widespread concern in all parts of the House that the facilities offered to visitors are far from adequate. Although the new visitor cafeteria, which is due to open shortly, will go some way towards improving that, far more could and should be done. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in his proposals to the Modernisation Committee, said:
	"A dedicated Visitor Centre could put the building and its history in the context of Parliament's place in the constitution and its importance as the expression of our democracy."
	I am grateful to the Administration Committee and especially to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for their continued examination of this issue. The proposals offer a fair balance between the need for access and the legitimate interests of the UK taxpayer so I support the motion.

Marion Roe: The debate has been useful and interesting. I thank hon. Members for their views and comments. I shall respond briefly.
	I very much value the support of the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) as a member of the Administration Committee. In this debate, his analysis of past concerns was thorough and his responses and further comments were most constructive, especially as regards the recommended charging policy. I am most grateful to him for his contribution. He made one point that I should like to clarify. There are tours in Italian, French, German and Spanish, although demand has been higher than supply. Increasing—indeed, doubling—the amount of foreign language tours is being considered for 2002.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was extremely kind in his comments about the work of the Administration Committee. On behalf of the Committee, I thank him for that and for his support for the report. He sought reassurance on any proposals by the Line of Route steering committee relating to the extension of the route. We would certainly expect any such proposals to come back to the Administration Committee. There could be minor alterations owing to the works programme—the Committee will keep an eye on that—but any major initiative would certainly come back to us.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned payment in euros. Ultimately, that is not a matter for the Administration Committee, and I understand that the relevant House authorities are now considering the question of accepting payment in other major foreign currencies, which would have an effect beyond the Line of Route. I shall say no more on that matter.
	The Minister has already picked up the point about the possible changes—nothing has, after all, been agreed—to the timetable of the summer recess. I partly covered that matter in my opening remarks. If we have a permanent arrangement, we shall certainly be able to be flexible—more flexible, in fact—in relation to any changes that might be introduced. No such changes are expected for this year.
	I want to put on record that neither my Committee nor I are responsible for any large blocks of concrete or anything else in New Palace Yard. I am sure that those who are responsible for them will read with interest the comments of my right hon. Friend. I understand that the structures are not permanent, and I am sure that further proposals will be made on the matter in due course.
	I am most grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his support for the report. He will acknowledge that we have in the past had many discussions on this issue, not only in the Chamber but outside as well, and I have been extremely grateful for his guidance on how best we might go about this business. I also welcome his comments about ticket sales, and about the input of the House of Commons. We were also pleased to see that input, and we hope to continue it and to make it even better.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the extension of the Line of Route. The Committee has already considered Portcullis House in that regard, but there are security difficulties involved. It is important, therefore, that the Committee should consider any extension carefully, for reasons not only of security, but of any staffing costs that might be involved. This is not a closed door, however, and we shall return to this question if we feel that anything can be taken in that direction.
	On the hon. Gentleman's question of double entry, and the security issues surrounding people going in and out several times, we know that this has caused grave frustration for visitors. We are instructing the Line of Route steering committee to consider a ticketing office, which we hope would prevent such problems. That question will then have to come back to the Administration Committee for us to consider.

Paul Tyler: May I, as I omitted to do so earlier, apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who had hoped to be here? [Hon. Members: She is behind you.] My hon. Friend has appeared. I now apologise for missing that fact.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has just referred to the steering committee. I mentioned earlier that it was not clear to me, having read the report, whether there are Members of the House—or members of her Committee—on the steering committee, or whether it is just an officer group.

Marion Roe: The group consists only of Officers, but of course they are accountable to the Administration Committee, so we shall consider carefully any proposals and recommendations that they make, and a case will have to be made for them. The membership of the steering group is listed in the report. They are very responsible Officers, and I am certain that any proposal that they make to the Administration Committee will have been thoroughly thought out.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his support, as I said, and for his confirmation that any modernisation proposals will not interrupt a Line of Route programme and that times will not be reduced but merely rearranged.
	I hope that the House will endorse the Committee's recommendations and allow the summer Line of Route to continue. The amazing reaction of visitors during the summers of 2000 and 2001, which, according to the visitor manager, is probably unrivalled by that of visitors to any other attraction in the country, points the way to the right decision, which is to acknowledge the success of the two trials and open the summer Line of Route to visitors on a permanent basis.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House approves the First Report from the Administration Committee on The Summer Line of Route—The 2001 Opening and Proposals for the Future (House of Commons Paper No. 433).

RICHARD NEALE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

William Hague: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a most important constituency matter on the Adjournment of the House. I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting the matter, as I know that he selects the subject to be raised on the Thursday Adjournment. For obvious reasons, it is a long time since I had the opportunity to raise a matter on the Adjournment of the House, and looking at the attendance for such debates, I think that this occasion will be much less noisy than those I was used to as Leader of the Opposition. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for being present to listen and respond to my remarks.
	I want to talk about the case of the disgraced consultant, Mr. Richard Neale. It is a bizarre, tragic, deeply disturbing and utterly scandalous tale, and it will need briefly retelling in the course of my remarks, although it has become widely known. It is the story of a gynaecologist, Mr. Neale, who was struck off the medical register in Canada in 1985 because of serious incompetence after the death of two patients. He went on, despite warnings to this country from Canada, to practise in the Friarage hospital in Northallerton, which is the principal hospital in my constituency, for 10 years, leaving a trail of pain and sorrow behind him. He then went on, after being, in effect, dismissed—in practice, he was paid off—by that hospital, to practise in Leicester, the Isle of Wight and London, causing more pain and suffering to the women in his care, before finally being struck off for professional misconduct in the United Kingdom in July 2000, 15 years after he was struck off in Canada.
	This is an extraordinary story. For the Department of Health, of course, it is an embarrassment. For the patients, whom we might more properly refer to as victims, it is a personal or family tragedy. For the House, it should be a vital matter to ensure that these things do not happen again. Some of the facts of the case have become widely known. They have been documented on the BBC programme "Panorama" and in The Northern Echo, a newspaper in the north of England. They have been documented by the action and support group for medical victims of Mr. Neale. I pay tribute to the people who formed that group, particularly Sheila Wright-Hogeland, who has been its inspiration. The decision of the General Medical Council to strike Mr. Neale off the register, albeit 15 years after he was struck off in Canada, was widely publicised at the time.
	Some action has been taken; some procedures have been changed and, no doubt, some lessons have been learned. After many representations and requests, the Department of Health has established an investigation into what happened, although it was set out in a fairly low-key announcement last July, with carefully worked out terms of reference, which were set out in a Department of Health document to which I shall refer later.
	I put it to the Minister that the investigation announced so far is not adequate to the scale of the scandal. It has a limited time frame, which cuts off the investigation in 1995, yet there were things that should not have happened after 1995, or so it seems to me. It is confined to the local health services, yet this matter must concern the Department of Health and the General Medical Council. The terms of reference do not allow consideration of private patients, of whom there were a large number. The investigation will not have the power or terms of reference that it needs, and I believe that a public inquiry is needed.
	I have a suspicion that the Minister will say in response to those thoughts that this is a tragic story—it is—but that it is not on the scale of the Bristol babies or the Shipman scandals and that we cannot have a public inquiry into everything. I suspect that she will put it more delicately than that, because it will be set out in a slightly more roundabout way in her brief, but that will be the gist of what she says. Those in the Department of Health may think that we cannot hold a public inquiry into everything that goes on.
	I put it to the Minister that this is an almost uniquely chilling case because not only was serious harm done to unsuspecting patients over a long time, but warnings were given to some people, somewhere in Britain's health establishment. Some people working in the health service knew what was happening and how bad a doctor that man was, but nothing was done. So this case is different from many others, and it has not just come to light recently. For a long time someone, somewhere knew what was happening to women in the care of the health service in North Yorkshire and then elsewhere.
	The people affected want to know—I want to know, as the Member of Parliament for many of them—what really happened, and an inquiry into local services in a narrowly defined time frame with limited scope may well not be able to tell us all that we need to know about what happened or to ensure that every procedure has been put right and every precaution taken.
	Let me develop this story in a little more detail; I am fortunate in having a little more time for this Adjournment debate than would normally be available. Let me make it clear that in no way is this related to current controversies about the national health service. The NHS is committed to openness. In its document on clinical neglect the Department calls for
	"a more responsive and patient-focused approach to both complaints and clinical negligence claims handling".
	It calls for
	"greater openness in the NHS to concerns—so patients know that they will be heard, and organisations can learn from mistakes".
	So what I am calling for is exactly what the Department of Health has called for in its own document on clinical negligence.
	Let me also make it clear that, in general, I have nothing but praise for the staff and management of the Friarage hospital, Northallerton. It is often short of resources, but it has many excellent consultants. What happened in this case is in no way representative of the service that my constituents generally receive from consultants in that hospital or of the management decisions taken by the local management of that hospital—but it did happen, so we must face up to it.
	Neale's record in Canada should have rung "loud alarm bells"—not my words, but those of the chief medical officer and the former director of public health in Yorkshire, Professor Liam Donaldson. The disciplinary committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found Neale guilty of incompetence and professional misconduct after the death of a patient whom he was treating. The inquest into that death showed that he had given the patient a banned substance and then attempted to falsify her records. After the death of another woman on whom he had operated against medical advice, another doctor in British Columbia described Neale as
	"completely incompetent and incapable of making reasonable decisions about patients."
	Neale's record in Canada was one of dishonesty and clinical incompetence. The former head of obstetrics and gynaecology at the Prince George hospital in British Columbia, Dr. Lee, summed it up when he said that Neale
	"had no judgment . . . should never have become a surgeon."
	He continued:
	"He is a menace to every patient that he touches . . . he should never be allowed to practise."
	That was the opinion in Canada, and it was not that Neale was a bit of a problem and that he had merely given the wrong prescription now and again. In the opinion of his colleagues, he should never have been allowed to practice.
	Neale was struck off in resounding terms by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He was charged with
	"failure to maintain the standard of practice of the profession . . . and conduct or an act relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional".
	This document—hon. Members will be relieved to know that I shall not discuss it all—details what Neale did that was appallingly wrong in the case when the patient died. The report concludes:
	"The Discipline Committee considered the evidence, found the allegation of incompetence against Dr. Neale to have been proved. In view of that finding the committee did not consider it necessary to make a finding on the second allegation. The committee did however consider the second allegation and, but for the finding of incompetence, would have found that the action of the doctor amounted to professional misconduct of a most serious nature."
	The chief of obstetrics and gynaecology reported that
	"due to repeated demonstration of poor judgment, Dr. Neale had been asked to withdraw from the call roster for Obstetrics and Gynaecology in their hospital. The other members of that staff did not wish to have Dr. Neale care for their patients."
	In British Columbia, as a result of poor judgment and poor procedure, all his privileges had been withdrawn in April 1979. That was the scale of the problem when this man practised medicine in Canada.
	Despite having been struck off the register in Canada, in 1985, incredibly, he was able to come to Britain and was employed as a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist in Northallerton. His references were checked in what was described as the usual way and only later did it appear that there were inaccuracies in them, with the misrepresentation of the status of some of his referees. He did not declare his past record to the Yorkshire regional health authority, but no additional attempt was made to find out the truth about him and there was no automatic checking of his Canadian history.
	Sir Donald Irvine, president of the GMC, told "Panorama" in 1999:
	"If we knew today somebody had been struck off abroad we would want to be systematic about inquiries into that doctor's practice. I have to say that has not always been the case. I have to say that in the past our systems have been rather more unsystematic than we would accept as credible now. Even today the GMC is not obliged to investigate doctors struck off in non EU countries".
	No action was taken against Neale then because no one knew that he had been struck off the register in Canada.
	What is far more alarming is the fact that no action was taken when his record began to come to light in 1986 and he was allowed to carry on practising. Dr. Andy Sear, a former friend of Neale in Canada, telephoned the GMC in Britain in 1985 or 1986 to warn about Neale and his record in Canada. In a statement, Dr. Sear said:
	"I knew that Richard Neale had a job in Britain. I was alarmed that Richard was managing to work as a consultant and that he would harm other people. It was time to warn the authorities before it was too late. I called the General Medical Council in London and was put through to the registration department. I asked them if they were aware of the problems he had had in Canada . . . They said thank you very much, very politely, for the contact. They said they were aware, but that having problems in another country did not preclude a doctor practising in Britain, if he hadn't done anything in Britain. I thought that was very high handed."
	So if a doctor had not done anything in Britain, the GMC would not necessarily want to take action.
	When the Yorkshire regional health authority found out about the allegations about Neale, it conducted an investigation. Dr. John Green, who conducted the investigation, said that he was
	"unaware that Richard Neale had been struck off and he didn't recall that the health authority knew that he had been asked to go for retraining to avoid being struck off."
	He said that
	"the investigators did not speak to the Canadian doctors who stopped Richard Neale operating in their hospitals in Canada, but we decided that they had been unduly conservative."
	Even when the regional health authority was made aware of Neale's record, instead of sacking him immediately and terminating his contract, he was able to continue to practise. The GMC was made aware of Neale's history by Dr. Green, but decided to take no action.
	This is a very serious matter. At no time were patients warned about Neale's record. If they had been, of course, they would not have accepted treatment from him. Because no action was taken against Neale, he was also able to work at other, private hospitals—based on a supposedly unblemished record at the Friarage hospital in Northallerton.
	So the man went on. He even applied to go back on the register in Canada and he was again rejected in resounding terms. People there knew about this man. The Yorkshire regional health authority even provided him with a reference, saying that he was being promoted to chairman of the surgical division at Northallerton, but the Canadians turned him down. The discipline committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario issued a report in 1987 when he reapplied to the register in Canada, saying:
	"There was no evidence of a change in the pattern of his impaired judgement. The inability to make good clinical judgements is a condition difficult to rectify . . . Committee members were impressed that he had poor judgement as a young doctor and, in spite of additional training, continued to have poor judgement.
	On the basis of deep-seated attitudinal and judgement problems, it was felt that Dr. Neale does not qualify for licence reinstatement."
	Even when Neale was refused his licence application, nothing was done in this country. It is unforgivable that a report detailing how he was incompetent, dishonest and lacking in judgment was not acted on. Despite sending a reference in support of his application for a Canadian licence, no one in Britain ever wondered about the outcome or ever found out that his application had been rejected. So he went on to cause great problems for many people. There is a long list of harrowing medical stories. I shall certainly not go through all of them, but I want to give the House a glimpse of what we are talking about.
	In 1977, Neale so badly botched bladder surgery at the Shaftsbury hospital in London, where he was before going to Canada, that his patient is still undergoing intensive treatment and reconstructive surgery 25 years later. Neale told her that he would operate after he got back from a lunchtime drinking spree to celebrate his successful job application in Canada. A senior consultant later told the patient that Neale had "just ripped through everything" and torn apart several internal organs.
	Neale discharged one patient from hospital prematurely in the face of strong protests from nursing staff. It transpired that the patient had a giant haematoma in her abdomen that caused her extreme pain such that she could not walk and had to crawl, even to the lavatory. Neale refused to re-admit her to hospital and insisted that she was "fine". The haematoma went untreated, became badly infected and ate into her bone, causing irreversible skeletal damage and permanent severe pain. She is now registered disabled. Another victim had the femoral nerve roots to her leg slashed as Neale performed a routine hysterectomy. She was left totally incontinent and unable to walk without the aid of two sticks.
	That is just a glimpse of the medical incompetence of the man. The abuse that he also dished out to patients is almost beyond belief. A Jehovah's Witness who could not receive blood was near death after an operation, but Neale declined to order any blood substitute after he had promised to do so. After her husband offered to pay for it, he screamed across the bed over the fully conscious patient, "Can't you see she's dying anyway? It's not worth bothering to order the blood substitute. Either she'll be dead or she won't by the time it gets here." Such, apparently, is the conduct of the man.
	Nurses have made statements saying that they knew how bad he was. One nurse of 27 years standing informed the action group for the medical victims that people were perfectly well aware of the clinical and surgical mayhem that he was causing at the Northallerton hospital, as well as being aware, from 1986, of his Canadian history. She said that the hospital insisted publicly that it knew of no clinical problems with Neale over the years, yet a gag order had been placed on all employees who were working with him—they were on pain of dismissal if they spoke openly about him.
	The same type of statement—again harrowing reading—has been made by another nurse who worked with him at a private hospital, confirming his refusal to adhere to even the most basic hygiene procedures, pre-operatively or during surgery. She said that he never bothered to "identify structures" but "simply slashed through everything", often including vital organs. That has become the familiar story.
	It is not a trivial matter, or even just a case of a problem doctor; the issue is more serious than that. After years of clinical negligence and incompetence Neale was finally dismissed in Northallerton on non-clinical grounds. Not being available when on call, bad treatment of junior staff, misrepresenting his role, false travel claims and appropriating NHS supplies for private practice eventually brought about his dismissal by the Friarage hospital. He was also arrested in 1991 and given a police caution after an incident in a public lavatory, behaviour that does not sit easily with being a respected medical consultant. Given that the case against Neale, later proven at the General Medical Council, showed negligence and incompetence dating back to 1986, and given that some people knew about it, it is not clear why no public authority was aware of that incompetence. It is unacceptable that he was not sacked for his conduct, both clinical and non-clinical.
	Neale then received a pay-off and a reference from the Friarage hospital to shift the problem elsewhere, one of the most controversial aspects of the whole case. The former director of operations at the hospital told "Panorama":
	"Getting rid of a doctor is not easy and so Dr. Neale was paid £100,000 to leave and given a good reference. I think there was a grave risk we were sending him out to inflict him on others but we were prepared to take that risk because the risk to our own people and service . . . was not one we were prepared to take."
	The reference allowed him to carry on practising at Leicester royal infirmary, on the Isle of Wight, at London's Portland hospital and in Harley street. Leicester royal infirmary heard about the matter from the press and complained to the Yorkshire regional health authority that the reference was misleading. At the time, the infirmary's spokesman said that he felt "extreme dissatisfaction" with the reference—not a surprising reaction.
	Again, I must emphasise how serious this is. We have all heard of "kind" references about employees who are no longer wanted, but when it concerns a consultant gynaecologist with an appalling track record that many people knew about and who went on to practise on other patients, it is serious indeed. Neale went on to practise until a warning letter was sent out in June 1998 after publicity started to arise about the case.
	In January 1998, a BBC North East documentary programme, "Close Up North", carried a story about Richard Neale. At the beginning of February 1998, the director of operations at Northallerton wrote to Professor Liam Donaldson, then regional director of the NHS for the north and Yorkshire, about Richard Neale's record in Canada and his dishonesty in the United Kingdom. It was five months later, in June 1998, before a warning letter was finally sent out around hospital trusts and authorities in the UK warning them about Richard Neale and advising them to consult urgently if they were proposing to employ him.
	The story finally began to come out in public. In July 2000, the professional conduct committee of the GMC found Neale guilty of serious professional misconduct and directed his erasure from the register. They found him guilty of 34 out of 35 counts of serious professional misconduct. The president said that it was a shocking and disturbing case:
	"For far too long he caused unnecessary pain and suffering to many women and showed a determined and alarming lack of insight . . . The case, like others recently, raises a number of important, wider issues for the whole system of medical regulation . . . his case highlights serious deficiencies in NHS procedures . . . It is difficult to understand why local action on his poor practice was not taken much earlier . . . The Neale case underlines, yet again, why there is such an urgent need to implement the systemic view of all doctors' practice".
	Neale was struck off by order of the GMC with immediate effect. There is a certain irony in that, after the 15-year history of the whole miserable business. The GMC concluded:
	"The Committee have directed the Registrar to erase your name from the Register. They have also concluded that, given the serious and persistent nature of the findings against you, it is necessary for the protection of the public that your registration be suspended with immediate effect."
	Thus, 15 years on, he was suspended with immediate effect, firmly locking the stable door after it had been open for so long.
	The case is tragic and extraordinary for hundreds of women and their families. It highlights many deficiencies in procedures and within the GMC. A doctor who should never have been allowed to practise in the UK was able to work unnoticed by the authorities for well over a decade, even though the truth about him was given to the authorities in various forms and at various stages while he was practising. I therefore believe that we need a more substantial, open and public inquiry than has been announced so far.
	It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That This House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]

William Hague: I am grateful for the continued opportunity to speak a little longer, but I hope that the Minister will reply soon.
	I believe that there is a need for a public inquiry. We know—and no doubt the Minister will enlarge on this—something of the Department's approach and its reasoning for not allowing such an inquiry. An internal memo from Professor Donaldson, the chief medical officer, to Health Ministers, dated 30 July 2001, appeared in The Northern Echo. It referred to the carefully worked out terms of reference for the investigation. I have been a Minister, and I know what "carefully worked out terms of reference" means in a civil service memorandum: it means that the terms of reference have been drawn up to limit the scope of the investigation. That is the tone and the meaning of the memorandum, which states:
	"There is some pressure from the Cabinet Office not to challenge the Judicial Review"—
	that is, the attempt by the action group to open the matter up to a public inquiry by judicial means—
	"so that an adverse judgement on holding inquiries in private is not registered. This relates to another high profile matter where the intention is not to have a full-scale public inquiry."
	I am sorry that the Cabinet Office has tried to enmesh this business in its determination not to hold a public inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster, to which the memo was obviously referring.
	The memo continues
	"Capitulation"—
	to a public inquiry—
	"would be disastrous. Not only would we end up with three public inquiries"—
	the memo refers to two parallel cases—
	"but all these are 'problem doctor' cases . . . There might be 50 such cases a year and we cannot be forced to accept such a precedent. The damage to the NHS of regular public inquiries would be immense."
	I put it to the Minister that if there are 50 cases of anything like this nature every year, we will need the inquiry to end all inquiries. We will need a huge public inquiry. Presumably what is meant is "50 cases in which doctors have done something wrong"; but as I hope I have demonstrated, this is not a case of the average doctor who has done something wrong so he needs a wrist-slapping. People may have died because of what he has done. That is clearly what is believed in Canada. This is a case of appalling incompetence, and appalling neglect of the need to protect the public.
	The memo says:
	"A further argument is that there is little further to be learned that has not been learned from other major inquiries into health service failures."
	Clearly there is a lot to be learned. Clearly much has gone wrong in the last 15 years. I know of no other inquiry that has covered all this ground and resolved all these issues. I therefore submit that a public inquiry is needed.
	In a response to e-mails to The Northern Echo, the Secretary of State himself said:
	"I am deeply concerned. When things goes wrong we need to learn the lessons. That is why openness is so important."
	Openness is very important in this case. I believe that we need an inquiry with an independent and impartial chairman, not from the Department of Health. I know that the Department has already suggested a concession in that regard, for which I am grateful. The inquiry should also be able to take evidence under oath, and have the power not only to subpoena witnesses but to examine the evidence of private patients. Private patients deserve some redress and some consideration from the Government and Parliament of the country.
	The inquiry should also have power to determine the role of the General Medical Council, and terms of reference enabling it to examine all the circumstances before and after the employment of Neale at the hospital, not just during his employment. I believe that the inquiry should be conducted in the presence of the press and the public.
	The investigation announced by the Department of Health does not meet those criteria. It is said that the victims can attend the inquiry, and can go out and tell the press what has been happening. Is that the form of openness that is now to be preferred in our society? Should not the press be free to report the proceedings, and report them straight? Must it rely on rumour and the passing on of news at second hand, when the matter involved concerns the public to such a huge extent?
	The terms of reference that the Department announced for the investigation are inadequate, as they extend only from 1985 to 1995, which is not sufficient to catalogue the inadequacy of the system since 1995 and prior to Neale's appointment in 1985. The investigation may well fail to cover the NHS pay-off and reference, and the GMC claims that it did not receive a complaint from NHS management until February 1998. All that is beyond the scope of the investigation that has been announced.
	The investigation will not be able to take evidence from private patients, even though they paid for treatment because of waiting lists or because Neale told them that that was a better way to go. The inquiry's enhanced terms of reference look only at local NHS services, but the Neale case goes wider than Yorkshire, has implications for the NHS and GMC as a whole, and has highlighted serious deficiencies in health service procedures. We must ensure that all the lessons are learned.
	Everybody affected by Neale feels that there has already been too much foot dragging. Everything has been done a bit late, and we have had to campaign to get anything. To get an investigation, an action group had to be formed and lobbying had to take place. Throughout the history of this case, officialdom has dragged its feet; everything has been done behind time, when it was too late. It is not surprising that the people affected now want an inquiry out in the open. Ministers have nothing to fear from that. The case extends over a long time; no one is saying that today's Health Ministers bear responsibility for the origin of the problem. That is not their fault as Ministers, but it will be their fault if every lesson for the future is not learned in a fully open and transparent way, which is why we need a public inquiry into this appalling and disgraceful scandal.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on securing this debate and raising an issue that is important and serious both for those who came into contact with Mr. Neale, including the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, and for NHS patients generally.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a series of points which I shall try to address as best I can. The Government take these matters very seriously indeed and are determined to ensure that procedures are in place to minimise the risk to patients as far as possible. However, millions of patients have received the highest-quality care from the NHS; it is important that we do not lose sight of the excellent service provided by the vast majority of NHS staff, and I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about the excellent service provided by the NHS in his constituency.
	There is universal agreement that patient safety must have priority. Any concerns about the conduct or competence of health professionals treating NHS patients must be properly investigated. Of course no system can be foolproof: when mistakes happen, a service is found wanting, or a professional is found to be incompetent, we must ensure that we learn the lessons necessary to avoid any future repetition to the extent that we are able to do so. That may involve local or national investigations, and of course there are differences of view about how best to approach these issues.
	In the case of Mr. Neale, there were clearly great failures in the system. I agree that the case is serious and involves all kinds of unacceptable failings in the system in the mid 1980s through to the mid 1990s. From what we now know, there appears to have been a series of mistakes that badly let down those patients who went to Mr. Neale expecting at the very least a reasonable standard of treatment. Mr. Neale let them down in the way in which he treated them, and the NHS let them down by failing comprehensively to protect them.
	The right hon. Gentleman set out a chronology of events and problems at different stages in the employment of Mr. Neale. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not wanting to pre-empt the results of the inquiry that we have launched to ensure a thorough investigation of what went wrong with the NHS systems that were then in place to protect patients. We are determined to learn the lessons of what went wrong in this case, as well as those of other incidents, in order to improve substantially the quality of care for NHS patients and give them the confidence that the right systems are in place to afford them the protection that they need. At this stage, it is important that Ministers do not pre-empt the diagnosis of the problem or the suggestions that result from the inquiry. However, I should like to respond as far as I can to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised in terms not only of the inquiry itself but of the broader themes that are raised by the events that took place in relation to Mr. Neale.
	As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Secretary of State for Health announced on 13 July last year a full independent investigation into the way in which the NHS had handled complaints about Mr. Neale's activities in the 1980s and l990s. Of course, the NHS has moved on considerably since 1997 and the proposed inquiry was intended to look not only at the systems that were in place at the time but at the extent to which improved systems could deal with the deficiencies exposed by the case. The right hon. Gentleman raised issues about whether the inquiry should be public. As he mentioned, those issues are to be the subject of a judicial review that is due to start on Tuesday 5 February, so there will shortly be full scrutiny of the Secretary of State's decision to hold an investigation into this case other than by way of a public inquiry. As is so often the case in such circumstances, a view must be taken about the right approach for achieving the best outcome. That may involve, as it has in this case, a decision about the relative merits of a public inquiry, as opposed to a private one. Both attract arguments for and against, but in the end, it is a matter of judgment in each case on the basis of the particular circumstances that it involves. It is almost inevitable that the final decision will not satisfy everyone.
	In general terms, the decision to hold an inquiry in private was based on the Secretary of State's concern that the systems that were then in place in the NHS for handling complaints should be thoroughly investigated, that the inquiry should be scrupulously fair and that the outcome should restore public confidence in the complaints system as quickly as possible. It was my right hon. Friend's view that those aims would be achieved most effectively by an independent inquiry that took evidence in private and published a report of its findings and recommendations. Following representations, he agreed that the inquiry proceedings could be attended throughout by all the witnesses, affording them the opportunity to hear what was said not only by their legal advisers but by other people.
	In making his decision, the Secretary of State has taken account of the many relevant factors and weighed carefully the arguments on each side. He has given special consideration to the views of the group supporting the victims by agreeing to significant modifications to the form that the investigation should take. All the information has been comprehensively stated in the evidence provided for the judicial review by the chief medical officer. It is obviously difficult to attempt to paraphrase or reproduce that careful analysis, which is extensive, but I can say that it covers the benefits of quicker resolution and of being better able to get to the truth if more people are comfortable giving evidence in private because there are sensitive areas of care. Clearly, the matter will be considered by the judicial review and it would be unwise for me to attempt to anticipate or pre-empt the task that will shortly be before the courts.
	The right hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about the inquiry's terms of reference. In particular, he mentioned the ability to subpoena witnesses. The Secretary of State has considered the matter and we are not aware of evidence of problems with getting witnesses to testify in similar cases, but my right hon. Friend has said that, if there is evidence that that proves a problem in this case, he is willing to reconsider whether additional powers need to be given.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the inquiry's terms of reference and scope. Ultimately, its scope will be a matter for the inquiry itself to determine. The terms of reference give the members of the inquiry quite wide scope in deciding the most important issues that need to be investigated. They state that the inquiry will need to investigate
	"the concerns or complaints raised concerning the appointment, practice and conduct of Richard Neale in respect of his employment as a consultant in the NHS.
	To investigate the actions which were taken for the purpose of (a) considering the concerns and complaints which were raised; (b) providing remedial action in relation to them; and (c) ensuring that the opportunities for any similar future misconduct were removed.
	To assess and draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of the policies and procedures in place.
	To make recommendations informed by this case as to improvements which should be made to policies and procedures which are now in place within the health service, (taking into account the changes in procedures since the events in question)."
	It is not for me to determine exactly what the inquiry will choose to examine, but the terms of reference give it scope to concentrate on the issues that it feels are most important when looking at the evidence and listening to the testimony that those who have suffered at the hands of Mr. Neale will give.
	It is important that we do not think that we need to wait until the inquiry ends before making improvements to the NHS. Many improvements have already taken place but it is critical that we establish a learning culture in the NHS. It must be able to learn from problems, difficulties and failings continuously, not simply when high-profile problems are covered in the national media.
	Time after time, the blame culture has led to failures in the NHS, as the Bristol inquiry has recently shown. We have set out to change that culture to one of trust, where there is greater openness and partnership between patients and professionals and where lessons may be learned when things go wrong.
	I want to respond to some of the broad themes that arise from the right hon. Gentleman's chronology of the events surrounding Mr. Neale's case. From the evidence we have seen, it is clear that one of the major concerns raised by Mr. Neale's case is the failure to pick up on the clinical problems with his practice, which subsequently formed the basis of complaints to the General Medical Council. Those were simply not picked up early enough. Nor was the extent of the problem recognised despite a series of investigations. It is clear that we need to ensure not only that systems are in place to identify clinical problems early but that they are responded to properly, openly and effectively.
	The changes over the past five years or so are aimed at creating a culture change. They focus on improvements in quality and patient safety, reform of professional self-regulation and guidance for professionals. They are aimed at preventing to the extent possible those failures that have led to cases such as that of Mr. Neale.
	The introduction of systems of clinical governance places a clear responsibility on the organisation to deliver and continuously improve patient care—it is the mechanism for ensuring, among other things, that NHS organisations can demonstrate that they are meeting the statutory duty of quality set out in the Health Act 1999. We need to have systems in place for local reporting and picking up adverse events, providing the mechanism for identifying and responding to cases of persistent poor practice by individual health professionals.
	Improvements include the establishment of the Commission for Health Improvement to review and report on quality improvement in health care organisations. Its principal role is to improve the quality of patient care in the NHS across England and Wales. CHI undertakes clinical governance reviews as well as investigating serious service failures in the NHS when requested to do so.
	An office for information on health care performance will be established within CHI with responsibility for publishing relevant information for patients. We are taking steps to publish information about the "success rates" of individual consultants—a move that might have brought some of Mr. Neale's practices to light earlier—building on national audit work already in train. Information about cardiac surgery will become available in 2004, with other specialties following.
	In line with the findings of "An Organisation with a Memory" we have established the National Patients Safety Agency to provide a single national system of reporting and analysis of adverse events and near misses that occur within the NHS, and to ensure that effective learning takes place to make the NHS a safer place for patients. We will be taking further steps to rationalise the number of bodies inspecting and regulating health and social care.
	We also need to reform the NHS complaints procedure to ensure that there is a procedure in place that can flag up patient complaints, particularly when there are persistent complaints around the same health professional, as was the case with Mr. Neale. The purpose of the reforms in which the Government are already involved is to ensure that the procedure is more independent and responsive to the needs of patients while maintaining the confidence and support of NHS staff. We are aiming to send out guidance to the NHS and commence training in early summer with a view to the reformed procedure being implemented later this year.
	We have also established the National Clinical Assessment Authority to help NHS employers assess the small minority of "poorly performing doctors" and make recommendations about whether and under what circumstances they will continue to practise in the NHS. It is important that we do not simply identify the problems, but have proper systems in place to assess those problems effectively and accurately and respond to them, as well as giving NHS employers guidance in being able to respond at local level.
	Another major concern in the case of Mr. Neale is the failure of the regulatory system to respond effectively and appropriately when it was found that he had effectively been struck off the medical register in Canada. The right hon. Gentleman made important points about that. If patients are to be protected, we must ensure that professionals are not simply able to move around to escape proper scrutiny or effective regulation. That was a matter of serious concern for the Government in the light of the Neale case.
	We have already acted quickly to free up the General Medical Council procedures. In August 2000, we introduced some interim reform measures that significantly improved the GMC's ability to act quickly to protect the public and to make sure that NHS employers know when the GMC is considering a case. New procedures enable the GMC to take into account certain criminal convictions of a doctor when abroad. In the spring, we will extend the GMC's powers to enable it to take into account disqualifying decisions taken by authorities outside Europe, as was the case with Mr. Neale. The GMC will not have to re-prove the case against a doctor, which has been the problem in the past in handling cases such as that of Mr. Neale.
	In the spring, we will also announce our proposals for the radical overhaul of all the GMC's fitness-to-practise procedures. That will improve the independence of the hearings in relation to GMC members, who in future will be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of cases but not the hearing of the case. We expect that the new arrangements will speed up the disciplinary processes, which have been subject to frustrating delays in the past, and make the processes and outcomes more understandable to the public.
	The establishment of a new council for the regulation of health care professionals, as proposed in the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, will also help to strengthen and co-ordinate the system of professional self-regulation. I believe that it is essential that professional self-regulation commands public and patient confidence. The new council will work with the regulatory bodies to build and manage a strong system of self-regulation that is open and transparent; that responds; that allows robust public scrutiny; and that explicitly puts patients first. The council should provide for greater integration and co-ordination between the regulatory bodies and the sharing of good practice and information.
	The right hon. Gentleman also referred to concerns about Mr. Neale's practice in the private sector. He may be aware that, under the Health Act 1999, the Secretary of State does not have the power to set up an inquiry that would cover that. He is also right that we need better regulation of the private sector. That is why it is right that we will introduce in April regulation of independent health care through the National Care Standards Commission, which will set national minimum standards for the private sector. All providers will be required to meet core standards, and standards specific to the particular services that they provide, which will be patient centred and will specifically address clinical treatment.
	In drafting those regulations, patient safety was the foremost consideration. Currently, when health authorities register and inspect premises, they take no account of the quality of services provided, and those who own or manage hospitals accept no responsibility for the treatment either. The patient enters into a contract with the doctor, not the hospital.
	After 1 April, those who run the establishment will be held responsible for the quality of the services provided. They will be required to have in place policies and procedures for clinical governance, and to have a formal complaints system. If patients are dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaints procedure, they may approach the National Care Standards Commission direct.
	The right hon. Gentleman discussed in detail some of the harrowing cases that came to light as a result of the events surrounding Mr. Neale, which have certainly proved distressing. That is why it was also felt important to offer additional treatment and support to those former patients of Mr. Neale. The care programme for members of the support group for ex-patients of Richard Neale started at the end of April last year. The initial clinical assessment phase has involved in-depth consultations with more than 100 of the women concerned.
	The process is ongoing, and I understand that more than 70 referrals have been made for further expert assessment and investigation, and, if appropriate, treatment. The majority of referrals have now been seen by Mr. Paul Hilton, urogynaecologist and clinical director for women's services at the Royal Victoria infirmary, Newcastle. The few remaining will be seen in the coming weeks.
	I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the safety of patients in the NHS should be paramount. As I have said, we have already introduced since 1997 a series of practical and effective measures to try to improve the clinical governance system and the way in which the NHS responds to mistakes and problems, enabling it better to identify problems at an early stage, and in particular to learn lessons from them. We must recognise that sometimes, things will go wrong, but we must also ensure that lessons are learned at an early stage, rather than many years later, after too much further damage has been done.
	It is important that the inquiry fully investigates the problems relating to Mr. Neale's treatment of patients, his employment in the NHS and the systems then in place. It must make recommendations about problems in the systems at that time, so that we can better improve existing systems.
	The inquiry was set up after great consideration, with terms of reference and conditions that the Secretary of State believes will best provide us with a thorough investigation and speedy answers. They will enable the NHS to learn effectively from the tragic events, and I hope that we can ensure that the events and actions surrounding Mr. Neale do not happen again.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.